Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2019-20 against a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order confirming additions due to alleged lack of evidence from the assessee, despite the assessee requesting adjournments and filing an adjournment letter which was not cognized.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, especially given the voluminous nature of submissions across eight assessment years and the context of the original assessment being under Section 144. The ITAT restored the issues on merits to the files of the CIT(A) for a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the common order dated 30.12.2022 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short), for AY 2012-13 onwards till AY 2019-20.
2 2. Heard and perused the record.
At the time of hearing, it transpires that amongst other grounds raised on merits of addition ground No. 1, 2 ,11 and 13 are primarily with regard to challenge of the action of the Learned First Appellate Authority for not giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Though Learned DR has defended the same submitting that adequate notices were issued.
As we go through the impugned order it can be seen that common order dated 30.12.2022 was passed for AY 2012-13 onwards till AY 2019- 20. Learned First Appellate Authority in the impugned order from page 2 to 18 has mainly reproduced the grounds of respective assessment years and thereafter proceeded to adjudicate ground No. 1 to 13 cumulatively by way of discussion initiated from page No. 19. At page No. 20 in para 5.1, it is mentioned that notices were issued on 18.04.2022, 18.11.2022, 7.12.2022 and 20.12.2022 respectively but assessee has only sought adjournment and has not furnished any written submissions in support of the grounds. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed ex- parte on 30.12.2022.
During the course of hearing, the Learned AO has filed before us an extract of ITBA portal available at page 125 of the Paper Book wherein, in regard to notice issued on 8.12.2022, for appearance and filing submission on 20.12.2022 an adjournment letter was filed before the Learned First Appellate Authority on 20.12.2022. At page No. 139 the copy of adjournment dated 20.12.2022 is available which has endorsement of receipt from the office of CIT(A)-3 Gurgaon. However, no cognizance of this adjournment letter has been taken by the Learned First Appellate Authority. Neither by way to admit or to have declined the same.
In a case where an assessee is defending as many as eight assessment years, in eight different appeals before Learned First Appellate Authority, obviously the submissions and evidences would be voluminous and that was reasonably cited as reason for the adjournment. The Learned First Appellate
3 Authority without any reasonable indulgence, proceeded ex- parte and at the same time on merits has confirmed that addition for lack of evidences. It is pertinent to observe that Learned First Appellate Authority should have been conscious of the fact that the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act, that all the more necessitated, giving adequate opportunity to appellant or to justify sufficiently, in the impugned order, the reasons for proceeding ex-parte. Thus we find substance in the submission of the Learned Counsel that First Appellate Authority has failed to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Consequently the appeals are allowed and the issues on merits are restored to the files of Learned CIT(A), who shall, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, pass an order afresh.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.