Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessments for AY 2013-14 and 2016-17 were completed ex-parte by the AO, leading to additions. Appeals to the CIT(A) also resulted in ex-parte orders confirming these additions, as the assessee failed to comply with notices at both stages. The assessee then challenged these confirmed additions before the ITAT.
Held
While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity in the interest of substantive justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and to pass speaking orders, with the expectation that the assessee would cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) should be set aside to grant the assessee an opportunity for fresh consideration, despite non-compliance with notices.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Dingluaia Hlawnmual, Aizawl, Mizoram, Aizawl - 796001 [PAN: ABNPH5869E] .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. ITO W-1, Silchar, DCIT/ACIT, Circle Silchar, Silchar (Assam) - 788001 ...…..…................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Adj. Petition Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.08.2025
ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of two appeals belonging to the same assessee. pertains to AY 2016-17.
250 of the Act dated 11.03.2025, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. Appeal arises from order dated 11.03.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.
& 111/GTY/2025 Dingluaia Hlawanmual 1.2 In both these cases, the Ld. AO’s order has been passed in an exparte manner and certain additions were made for both the years. The assessee carried both these matters before the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not avail of several opportunities to represent before the first appellate authority. Thereafter, for both the years, exparte orders have been passed.
The assessee has filed both the appeals challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the respective additions made for both of the assessment years. On the last date of hearing, the assessee had filed an adjournment application but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 The Ld. DR took us through the impugned orders and the orders of Ld. AO for both of the years. It was pointed out by the Ld. DR that there was no compliance whatsoever to the notices issued by either the Ld. AO or the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR stated that in the absence of any presentation whatsoever before either of the authorities then there was no option but to take an adverse view against the assessee on the basis of facts already on record.
We have carefully considered the orders of Ld. AO and the impugned orders for both the years. We have also heard the Ld. DR at length. We find that in this case for reasons best known to the assessee, he has chosen to ignore the notices issued by both the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) for both the years. However, in the interests of substantive justice, we feel that the assessee deserves a chance to ventilate his grievances before an appropriate lower authority so that at least the basic facts are thrashed out. To this extent, we set aside the impugned orders in both the appeals and remand these cases back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration and thereafter passing speaking orders. The assessee would do well to cooperate with the Ld. AO and present his arguments regarding the assumption of jurisdiction as also on the facts so that the Ld. AO can & 111/GTY/2025 Dingluaia Hlawanmual arrive at a judicious view in both the matters.
In result, these two appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21.08.2025