Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (FAA), which originated from an assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary grievance raised before the Tribunal was the denial of a proper opportunity for personal hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) to present and substantiate their claims, despite requests made.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's Ground No. 3, concluding that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity for personal hearing or to specifically request the necessary documentary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to grant the assessee a personal hearing and allow them to substantiate their claims.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's submissions and claims without providing an adequate opportunity for personal hearing and presentation of supporting documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.10.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Noida- 1/10682/2018-19 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 17.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-5(2) (4), Noida (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
None has appeared for the assessee when the case was called for hearing. The record shows that on 30th January, 2024, 5th March, 2024, 13th May, 2024 and 16th July, 2024, none has appeared for the assessee and requests were received through e-mails on account of non-availability of the ld. AR of the assessee for various reasons. Further, no request is received for adjournment and none has appeared for the assessee. There appears to be no justification to adjourn the matter.
On going through the material before us and submissions of Ld. DR, we find that the assessee has raised a ground No.3 that the assessee was not given an opportunity of personal hearing though the same was requested vide submissions dated 23.04.2023. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has mentioned of the fact that when notices were issued, the assessee had responded on 12.01.2021 and 26.04.2023 and even the submissions have been reproduced in impugned order. But, whatever submissions were made have been discarded on the basis that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim, whereas in the submissions the assessee had mentioned about filing of the relevant evidences.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that if not convinced, the ld. CIT(A) who is having coterminous powers of the AO could have asked specific documentary evidences. Furthermore, as the assessee was seeking an opportunity of personal hearing that all the more required letting the assessee know what documentary evidences would have substantiated the claim further. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to sustain ground No.3. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The issue on merits are restored to the file of the CIT(A), to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee to substantiate the claim and decide the issue afresh.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.10.2024.