Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's original assessment was completed under section 143(3). Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 147 based on information regarding a cash deposit of Rs. 36,25,000 that allegedly escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer completed an ex parte assessment as the assessee did not comply with notices, and the appeal to CIT(A) was also dismissed for non-prosecution, prompting the present appeal to the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunities of being heard at both assessment and first appellate stages. Therefore, the case is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment order after granting proper opportunities to the assessee, and the Tribunal refrained from commenting on the merits.
Key Issues
Whether the ex parte assessment and appellate orders, passed without providing proper opportunities of being heard to the assessee, are valid, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
Appellant by Sh. Arjun Chaturvedi, CA Respondent by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
This appeal preferred by the Assesseeis against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [In Short ‘the CIT(A)’]on 01.12.2023.
The appellant-assessee, vide eight grounds of appeal, had challenged the impugned appellate ex parte order of the CIT(A) being against the principle of natural justice as proper opportunities of being heard were never provided by the CIT(A). Further, the justification for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short ‘the Act’] beyond four years by the Assessing Officer, quantum of addition upheld by the CIT(A) and charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act were also challenged.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the original assessment of the appellant-assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at income of Rs.15,22,380/- as against the returned income of Rs.14,01,863/-. Later, the appellant-assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act based on the information that the cash deposit of Rs. 36,25,000/- in her bank account escaped assessment. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the appellant-assessee did not comply to any statutory notice time as detailed in para 2 and 3 of the assessment order. Even return of income was not filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Consequentially, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte as the appellant-assessee failed to explain the said cash deposit in her bank account. Hence, the Assessing Officer enhanced the income by Rs. 36,25,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant-assessee filed appeal, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution. Hence, this appeal is before us.
The Ld. AR submitted that the case should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for making assessment de novo. Therefore, the case was not heard on merit and legal issue raised in the appeal.
The ld. DR, placing reliance on the assessment order and the appellate order, submitted that the opportunities of being heard were sufficiently given not only by the Assessing Officer but by the CIT(A) also. Hence the Ld. DR argued that the findings of the subordinate authorities needed upholding.
We have heard both the parties at length. We have considered the facts of the case in entirety and perused the orders of the subordinate authorities. We are of the considered view that the case of the appellant-assessee is fit for remitting back to the Assessing Officer for passing the assessment order de novo after affording reasonable opportunities of being heard. We are refraining from commenting on merit and legal issue of the case.