Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Promila Dua, appealed against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order for AY 2012-13, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 12.83 lakhs under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits, arising from section 144 proceedings. The CIT(A) order dated 29.02.2024 was challenged for lacking points of determination and speaking adjudication, with the assessee citing chronic illness for her non-appearance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the CIT(A)'s failure to comply with section 250(6) by not framing points of determination or providing a speaking adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities to present her case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper adjudication under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding an addition for unexplained cash deposits under section 69A, and if the case should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 69A, Section 250(6) of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 05.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 02.12.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2023-24/1061768295(1) dated 29.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Delay of 56 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal stands condoned as per her contentions/averments explaining reasonable cause on account of the situation beyond her control.
It next emerges that the CIT(A)’s impugned ex-parte lower appellate order upholding the assessment’s findings dated 23.12.2019 making section 69A unexplained cash deposits addition of Rs.12.83 lakhs, neither framed any points of determination nor any speaking adjudication thereupon as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.
Coupled with these, learned counsel has quoted assessee’s chronical illness as the sole reason of her non-appearance/non- cooperation in the lower appellate proceedings. 6. Faced with this situation, it deems appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for its afresh adjudication as per law, subject to a rider that the assessee shall positively plead and prove his case within three effective opportunities at her own risk and responsibility. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
2 | P a g e Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd December, 2024