Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A)/NFAC order for AY 2017-18, which upheld additions of unexplained cash deposits and sundry creditors in an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended non-appearance was due to circumstances beyond their control and communication gaps between their office, auditor, and counsel.
Held
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be granted three effective opportunities to present their case. The assessee bears the responsibility to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order and upholding of additions (unexplained cash deposits and sundry creditors) by the CIT(A) in an assessment under Section 144 was justified, and if the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058336840(1), dated 30.11.2023 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee/appellant whilst upholding the assessment findings inter alia, adding his cash deposits as unexplained expenditure and unexplained sundry creditors; involving varying sums respectively.
The Revenue vehemently supports both the learned lower authorities’ action that the assessee has not filed any supportive evidence explaining all the foregoing heads, and therefore, his instant appeal deserves to be rejected. 5. The assessee’s case on the other hand is that he was prevented on account of circumstances beyond his control to appear and cooperate in the lower appellate proceedings. Learned counsel quotes specific reason of communication gaps at various levels i.e. assessee’s office vis-à-vis his auditor and arguing counsel as well as the various procedural intricacies involved herein. 6. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that larger interest of justice would be met in case the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the learned CIT(A) for its afresh appropriate adjudication as per law preferably within three effective