Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte after it was migrated to the faceless assessment system. The CIT(A) contended that the assessee failed to respond to notices, while the assessee claimed to have filed submissions earlier in physical mode and also responded to subsequent notices. The assessee argued the dismissal was without considering their submissions.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the submissions already on record and those filed subsequently. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make further submissions in accordance with law.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering prior submissions or providing adequate opportunity, particularly after the appeal's migration to the faceless assessment system.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI
(A.Y.2013-14) Santok Singh, J-98, Vikas Puri, Delhi 110018 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AISPS-8712-K बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, R. No. 107, Drum Shape Building, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent I.P Estate, New Delhi अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Daljit Singh, Advocate, Through VC �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 04/12/2024 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 04/12/2024 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 23.11.2023, for assessment year 2013-14.
Shri Daljit Singh, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) without considering written submissions of the assessee dismissed the appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessee had furnished written submissions on 07.12.2019 along with an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and appeared in person with AR before the CIT(A) on 07.05.2019, 21.05.2019 and 12.06.2019. Subsequently, appeal of the assessee was migrated to face less system. Notice from the CIT(A) were received by the assessee on 13.10.2023 and 23.10.2023 to which the assessee replied. The CIT(A) without considering submissions earlier filed in physical mode before migration to face less regime and even without considering subsequent submissions passed the impugned order. He further asserted that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits and would be able to make out a case, if an opportunity is granted to explain the grounds raised
in appeal before the CIT(A).
3. Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, representing the department vehemently defending the impugned order stated that the CIT(A) had granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee, but the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). He thus prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceeding (in faceless mode) has dismissed appeal of the assessee. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee had already made submissions and had personally explained the case to the CIT(A) on three occasions. After the introduction of faceless regime, the appeal of assessee was migrated to CIT(A), NFAC. The CIT(A) had issued notice to the assessee on two occasions. As per the impugned order the assessee did not respond to any of the notices, whereas, the assessee has disputed the same and has contended that the assessee in reply to the notices had filed submissions. Nevertheless, the earlier submissions filed by the assessee must be available on record, the CIT(A) before passing the impugned order could have considering the submissions already filed by the assessee. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, after considering submissions of the assessee already on record and after affording reasonable opportunity of making further submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.