Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal by Sanjay Tyagi for AY 2012-13 challenged a CIT(A) order that upheld an ex-parte assessment. The Assessing Officer had added Rs.25,10,500/- as undisclosed income under section 69, representing cash deposits. The assessee failed to appear during both the assessment and lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the assessee's substantive grounds or provided a speaking adjudication as required by section 250(6). Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities to present their case, subject to their sole risk and responsibility.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding an ex-parte assessment without a speaking adjudication on substantive grounds, despite the assessee's non-appearance in prior proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 69, Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 34, Shahpur Nij Morta, Ward-2(2)(4), Ghaziabad-201003 Ghaziabad-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFIPT2764H Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 17.11.2023 in DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058023550(1), in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges from a perusal of the instant case file and the department valuable assistance that the Assessing Officer had framed ex-parte assessment against the assessee on 08.11.2019 adding an amount off Rs.25,10,500/- as undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Act representing cash deposits and the CIT(A)/NFAC has upheld the same in the impugned lower appellate order.
Sanjay Tyagi 4. Mr. Bansal vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the assessee had neither appeared in the assessment nor in the lower appellate proceedings despite having served various statutory notices. He could hardly dispute the fact that the assessee’s corresponding substantive ground merit have nowhere been dealt in the impugned lower appellate discussion much less that having framed points of determination followed by a speaking adjudication thereof as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act.
Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to a rider that it shall be the assessee's sole risk and responsibility to plead and prove with all relevant facts, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/12/2024.