Loading judgment…
Facts
M/S Woodcraft Furniture, engaged in furniture manufacturing and trading, filed its income tax return. The Assessing Officer made substantial additions, which were subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A)/NFAC due to the assessee's failure to submit necessary details during the appeal process. The assessee filed appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 before the ITAT.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's previous counsel was ill, preventing proper submissions, and thus directed the AO to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to ensure principles of natural justice are upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the denial of proper opportunity to the appellant by the lower authorities, leading to the confirmation of additions without considering submissions, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK
Date of hearing : 14.08.2024 Date of pronouncement : 20.08.2024 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
The Assessee has filed these appeals against the separate Orders dated 17.8.2023 & 14.8.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Since common Ground has been argued in both the appeals of the Assessee, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the appeals are disposing of by passing a common order, by dealing with the facts of (AY 2014-15) and the decision thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other Assessee’s Appeal No. 2919/Del/2023 (AY 2013-14). The solitary common Ground argued in both the appeals read as under:-
The order passed u/s. 250 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is without granting proper opportunity to the appellant therefore is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Briefly stated, facts are that the assessee is in the business of manufacture and trading of furniture. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.9.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 8,32,589/-. AO made the total additions of Rs. 72,54,241/- by computing total income at Rs. 80,86,830/- vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016. 2.1 Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, noted that no detail has been filed by the assessee, hence, he confirmed the additions.
Against the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the earlier counsel was very ill, hence, proper submissions could not be made before the lower authorities, which lead to the additions. Therefore, he submitted that now the assessee wishes to canvass the case properly and accordingly prayed that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to canvass assessee’s case before the Assessing Officer, by remitting back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh. He also undertook that he will appear before the revenue authorities to present the case appropriately.
Per contra, Ld. DR did not have much opposition to the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR.
After hearing rival contentions and perusing the materials on record, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we remit back 2 the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to complete the assessment de novo, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the (AY 2014-15) stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Following the consistent view as taken in Assessee’s (AY 2014-15) as aforesaid, the other Assessee’s (AY 2013-14) also stands allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20/08/2024.