Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
order : January 02, 2025 ORDER Per Bench: These three appeals have been preferred by the assessee for different assessment years i.e 2016-17 & 2018-19 against separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) respectively. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are common and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
At the outset, we find that the appeals have been pending for considerable period and no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee but simply filed an application by which the assessee sought an adjournment of the case for today. On perusal of records, we find that multiple dates of hearing were scheduled but the assessee failed to to 494/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2018-19 Anil Kumar Paik appear despite being issued of consecutive notices. The dates of hearing were on 29.05.24, 11.09.24, 21.11.24 & 01.01.25 i.e. today itself and over the past six months, the assessee has consistently failed to attend or respond which hindered the conclusion of hearing. Even from the records, it shows that the assessee did not provide a valid authorization i.e. Vakalatnama or any documentation to establish AR to represent the case before us. Due to absence of the ld. AR or lack of representation, the Tribunal proceeds to decide the case based on the materials available on record and also with the assistance of the ld. DR to evaluate the merits of the case.
First, we take up the issue in respect of for assessment year 2013-14. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and declared income at Rs.6,42,65,110/- in the return filed on 30.03.2015. During the scrutiny assessment, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.6,99,15,110/- with an addition of Rs.56,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-compliance by the assessee as no one appeared during the time of hearing before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below.
After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, we find from the records that the issues in instant appeal were not adequately been addressed by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee did not turn up before the ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order due to which ex parte order was passed against the assessee. We find that to 494/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2018-19 Anil Kumar Paik dismissal of appeal solely on procedural ground without examining the merits of the case which is essential condition u/s 250(6) of the Act, is not justified. In the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it necessary to provide the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate his case in order to ensure just and fair assessment. We, therefore, remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the case on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. We also direct the assessee to diligently comply with the notices issued and participate sincerely in the proceeding to avoid any delay. In terms of the above findings, the instant appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
for assessment year 2018-19, the case also involved similar circumstances of non-appearance before the ld. CIT(A) as was discussed earlier in ITA No.492/Kol/2024. Therefore, our findings given above in will mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No.493/Kol/2024 also and ITA No.493/Kol/2024 is also allowed for statistical purposes.
The issue involved in 2018-19 is imposition of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the which was consequential to the quantum additions made in ITA No.493/Kol/2024. Since, we have remanded back the main appeal in to the file of the Assessing Officer, therefore, consequential penalty u/s 270A of the Act has no legs to stand and the same has become infructuous. Accordingly, is dismissed as infructuous. However, the penalty proceedings would be resurrected in case some addition is eventually sustained by the Assessing Officer, as a consequential action. to 494/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2018-19 Anil Kumar Paik
In terms of the above, & are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.494/Kol/24 is dismissed as infructuous.
Kolkata, the 2nd January, 2025.