Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against orders for assessment years 2017-18, 2011-12, and 2016-17. The Assessing Officer completed best judgment assessments under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act due to the assessee's failure to file specific replies, citing personal difficulties, and lack of appearance or submissions before the Ld. NFAC. The assessee's Authorized Representative requested a fresh opportunity for effective representation before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent lack of proper representation at various stages and acknowledged the AO's best judgment assessment. Considering the assessee's request for an opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore all three appeals to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the best judgment assessments made by the AO should be set aside due to the assessee's claim of insufficient opportunity of being heard, and whether the case should be remanded for de novo adjudication with a proper opportunity.
Sections Cited
144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M.BALAGANESH
& 2843/Del/2023 [Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2016-17] Surender Gupta, vs ACIT, Shop No-12, The Diamond Mall, Circle-59(1), Ground Floor, Opp Mohan Ghee Delhi-110001. Enterprises, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 PAN-AAYPG1109N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA Respondent by Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2024 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM : These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld CIT(A)”], Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre [“Ld. NFAC”], Delhi, all dated 10.08.2023 for the assessment years 2017-18, 2011-12 & 2016-17 respectively. Identical issues are involved in these appeals hence, we taken up together and disposed off all three appeals filed by the assessee, by this common order for the sake of convenience.
Though, the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, we find that there is preliminary ground raised by the assessee, stating that adequate opportunity of being heard had not been granted to the assessee by the authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment was completed by Ld. Assessing Officer [“Ld.AO”] u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], as only general reply was filed by the assessee and no specific replies were filed due to personal difficulty and family disputes faced by the assessee during that time. Even before Ld. NFAC, there was no appearance by the assessee or by his Ld. Authorized Representative (“AR”) of the assessee. No written submissions were even filed before Ld. NFAC by the assessee. Before us, Ld.AR of the assessee prayed for one more opportunity to be granted to the assessee for an effective representation for the case. Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr.DR) for the Revenue stated that no representation was being made even before the Ld. AO by the assessee in the instant appeals hence, it would be advisable for restoring of the appeals to the file of Ld.AO.
Having heard both the parties and considering the facts that even the AO has passed best judgement assessment u/s 144 of the Act, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore these appeals to the file of Ld.AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given Page | 2 reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th July, 2024.