Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the impugned order dated 18/07/2023 of learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as the “Ld.CIT(A)”]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: -
“1.The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO, misinterpreting the word “Rin-Pustika” and mentioning it a „loan statement‟. At least he could see the attached rin-pustika covering every sale with seal and sign of the sub-registrar (The land Authority of the state).” In this case, the assessment order dated 22.11.2018 passed 2. by the Assessing Officer under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.38,88,000/- on account of immovable property purchased by the assessee as the source of investment. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018 and was served upon the assessee. Further the AO has issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act and also Page 2 of 4 served upon the assessee and there was no compliance to the aforementioned notices to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has passed the order exparte qua the assessee vide order dated 22.11.2018.
Aggrieved by this order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A),whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance/submissions by the assessee to notices. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the facts of assessment proceedings. Further the assessee has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities.
On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative (“DR”) opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.
I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no appearance/submissions in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. The Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing on various dates i.e. Page 3 of 4 21st January, 2021, 13th April, 2023 and 17th July, 2023, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. When a query was raised to Ld.AR for the reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A),the explanations are not convincing. Admittedly, the assessee had raised various grounds of appeal challenging the impugned additions, however, the Ld. CIT(A) did not advert to the contentions raised through grounds of appeal. Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to substantiate his case with evidences and information. Accordingly, I hereby set aside the impugned appellate order dated 18.07.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A) and I restore the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass denovo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This appeal is disposed of in accordance with aforesaid direction.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/01/2025.