Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, involved in betelnut trading, did not file a valid return. Following a search action under Section 132 revealing loose sheets with transactions totaling Rs. 23,01,78,220/-, an ex-parte assessment was made under Section 144, adding Rs. 1,82,54,497/- as the assessee failed to respond to a notice under Section 142(1). The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte under Section 250.
Held
Observing that both the assessment and first appellate orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and re-framing of the assessment, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and for the assessee to substantiate their claims.
Key Issues
Whether ex-parte assessment and first appellate orders should be upheld due to non-participation; The necessity of providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and substantiate claims regarding additions made during a search operation.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 142(1), Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, : GAUHATI BENCH: GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, HON’BLE
ORDER
PER MANOMOHAN DAS, JM
The captioned group of appeals by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the (“CIT(A)” dated 31.01.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15, AY 2015- Page 1 of 4 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 16, AY 2016-17, AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19, AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21.
The registry has noted that, there are delays of 115 / 116 days in filing of the captioned appeals in the Tribunal by the assessee. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay and we condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee.
The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed a valid return of income in respect of the year under consideration. The assessee was engaged in the business of trading in betelnut during the year. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee as a part of Supari Syndicate Group on 04.03.2020. Consequently, the case was selected for scrutiny u/s 153A for the year under consideration. A material marked as AKP-01 seized on 04.03.2020 during the course of search operation from the residential premises of the assessee which is a bundle of loose sheets apparently containing accounts with large values figures in Bangla. It was found that, the grand total of all amounts written in these sheets comes out to RS. 23,01,78,220/-. Therefore, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to that notice. Consequently, the ld. AO went to assess the income of the assessee on the basis of the information mad material available on record. The ld. AO after consideration of the case of the assessee on the material which were available on record, completed the Page 2 of 4 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 assessment under section 144 of the Act. The ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 1,82,54,497/- to the total income of the assessee.
Being aggrieved, Smt. Shikha Bhuyan, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31.01.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.
We observe that, the ld. CIT(A) was constraint to dispose of the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. The assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) despite getting of several opportunities. The ld. CIT(A), in absence of the assessee considered the assessment order passed by the ld. AO dated 25.09.2021 and has upheld the addition made by the ld. AO.
We observe that, both the orders of the lower authorities are ex-parte order. The assessee did not participate in the assessment proceeding as well as in the 1st appellate proceedings.
Since, both the orders of the lower authorities are ex- parte orders, we deem it fit to remand the case of the assessee to ld. AO for reframing of the assessment of the assessee for the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.01.2025 and remand the case to ld. AO for reconsideration. We direct the ld. AO to reframe the assessment after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. At the same time, we direct the assessee to substantiate his claims before the ld. AO. Thus, we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes only.