Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order from the CIT(A)-NFAC for Assessment Year 2017-18, which upheld an addition of Rs. 70,02,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. This addition represented additional income disclosed during a survey under section 133A, and the CIT(A) adjudicated the matter ex-parte without examining the merits of the case.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)-NFAC erred by adjudicating the appeal ex-parte without considering the relevant merits, even though the assessee had multiple opportunities but failed to appear. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication as per law, granting the assessee up to three opportunities to prove their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding an addition of income through an ex-parte adjudication without examining the merits of the case, despite the assessee's non-appearance.
Sections Cited
Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, [in short, the “NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061526316(1) dated 26.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing that with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the CIT(A)-NFAC has upheld the Assessing Officer’s action adding an amount of Rs. 70,02,000/- representing his additional disclosed income during the course of survey under section 133A by ex-parte adjudication; and that too, without examining the relevant merits as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.
Faced with this situation, learned Senior DR vehemently argues that the assessee had not appeared in the lower appellate proceedings despite having availed six opportunities as evident from para 4 (pages 2 to 3) in the impugned order. He could hardly dispute that even if the assessee had not appeared himself or through his authorized representatives, it was indeed incumbent for the lower appellate authority to have decided the issues on merits in the foregoing terms. We, therefore, deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore assessee’s instant appeal
2 | P a g e back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for afresh adjudication as per law, preferably within 3 effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessee shall himself prove his case at his own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings.