Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2016-17, which stemmed from an assessment order under section 143(3). The appeal challenged an addition made by the Assessing Officer, with the assessee contending that the inability to provide explanations was due to genuine constraints, not concealment, and that they were willing to provide additional documentation.
Held
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance and the lack of documentation before lower authorities, decided to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a fresh order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present all necessary details.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer without considering the assessee's explanation was justifiable, and if the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to furnish documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR
ORDER
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”] vide order dated 01.09.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 and arises out of the assessment order dated 29.12.2018 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’].
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-
1) The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds for challenging the assessment order:
1.1 The addition made by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and unjust, as the Appellant was unable to provide an explanation not due to any willful misconduct or concealment but due to genuine constraints.
1.2 The Appellant was willing to cooperate fully with the assessment proceedings and was forthright in her responses, but the inability to provide a detailed explanation should not be construed as concealment of income.
1.3 The Assessing Officer has failed to consider the overall financial position, past records of the Appellant, and other relevant factors before making the addition. The addition is based solely on conjecture. 1.4 The Appellant is willing to provide any additional information or documentation to support her claim and can establish that these deposits are not unaccounted for income.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notices. On perusal of the order of the first appellate authority we find that the assessee did not produce any relevant documentary evidences before Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has also not produced any relevant documentary evidences or explanation before the AO.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material available on record. Before us also the assessee has chosen not to attend. However, in the interest of justice and fair play we deem it fit to restore the issues to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to attend the assessment proceedings and furnish all necessary details in support of his assessment. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
The order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2024 after the conclusion of the hearing.