Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an ex-parte order from the CIT(A)-NFAC for AY 2009-10, which upheld an addition of Rs.33.76 lakhs under section 69 for unexplained investment, initially made under section 144 proceedings. The CIT(A)'s order lacked proper points of determination and speaking adjudication, and the assessee also claimed non-resident status.
Held
The tribunal found that the CIT(A)-NFAC's ex-parte order lacked proper adjudication as required by law. Thus, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the taxpayer is responsible for pleading and proving all relevant facts. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, affirming an addition under section 69, was valid without proper adjudication and a speaking order as required by section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 69, Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, 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/250/2023-24/1058364074(1) dated 30.11.2023 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. I accordingly proceeded ex-parte against him.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)- NFAC’s ex-parte lower appellate discussion affirming assessment findings dated 29.11.2016 making section 69 unexplained investment of Rs.33.76 lakhs have neither framed any points of determination nor any speaking adjudication thereof, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.
Coupled with this, assessee’s claims his status as a non- resident as well, which is seriously objected from the departmental side.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee’s lower appeal has not seen its adjudication, as per law in the foregoing terms.
I accordingly deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the same back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for its afresh adjudication as per law, subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall only plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings.