Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The assessee contended that the original assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s 147 was not properly communicated, and that they had responded to notices during both assessment (u/s 148, 142(1)) and appellate proceedings. The department, however, maintained that the assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to ex-parte orders by both the AO and CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the assessee's submissions, despite evidence that the assessee had provided a reply to at least one of the appellate notices. Concluding that the assessee was not non-compliant, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing for consideration of all facts and submissions in accordance with law.
Key Issues
Whether an ex-parte appellate order can be passed without considering the assessee's submissions, and the assessee's right to be heard and proper communication of orders.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 142(1), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y.2012-13) Noor Ullah Zargar, 32/17, Indl. FL., Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110060 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AAHPZ-8882-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Ward-50(3), New Delhi अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered Accountant �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 09/12/2024 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 09/12/2024 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 17.01.2024, for assessment year 2012-13.
Ms. Uma Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 14.02.2020 against assessment order dated 30.11.2019 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). She submitted that the assessee was not aware of the assessment order as the said assessment order was neither uploaded on the official website of the Department nor the same was communicated to the assessee. To substantiate her submission, she furnished a copy of screenshot from e-filing portal (AY 2012-13) of the Department. The assessee vide application dated 15.01.2020 applied for certified copy of the assessment order for AY 2012-13 (copy of application at page no. 88 of the paper book), immediately thereafter on receipt of certified copy of the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). She further submitted that during assessment proceedings in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assesee filed reply on 02.05.2019. In response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed reply on 12.11.2019, 22.11.2019 and 25.11.2019. The assessee made further submissions on 26.11.2019 and 27.11.2019. The Assessing Officer (AO) without taking note of submissions and documents furnished by assessee passed the assessment order. She further stated that even in First Appellate proceedings the assessee in response to notice dated 10.11.2023 filed reply on 16.11.2023. To substantiate her contentions she placed on record copy of acknowledgment indicating reply filed by assessee during assessment proceedings and at the time of first appellate proceedings. Thus, it is not a case were assessee was non compliant.
Per contra, Rajesh Tiwari representing the department submitted that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). In absence of any reply from the assessee, the CIT(A) was constrained to pass the impugned order on the basis of documents/material available on record. Even before the AO, the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act and 143(2) of the Act. The AO was constrained to complete assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) had issued three notices to the assessee. In response to first notice dated 30.01.2021, the assessee sought time to file (AY 2012-13) submissions, the second notice was issued on 08.08.2023, there was no response to said notice from the assessee’s side. The last notice was issued by CIT(A) on 10.11.2023. The assessee filed replies to said notice. The CIT(A) without considering reply of the assessee proceeded on to pass the impugned order. The assessee had furnished reply to one of the three notices, hence, it cannot be said that there was no response to the statutory notice by the assessee. The impugned order was passed by the CIT(A), without considering submissions of the assessee.
Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, after considering facts of the case and submissions of the assessee, in accordance with law.
The assessee is directed to respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.