Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a best judgment assessment under Section 144, which included additions under Section 69A, confirmed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte, erroneously stating non-compliance, despite the assessee having uploaded submissions to the ITBA Portal.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting the CIT(A) misdirected himself in law by ignoring the assessee's online submissions. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present evidence regarding cash deposits and investments.
Key Issues
The key issue was the validity of the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, which disregarded the assessee's online submissions, leading to confirmation of additions under Section 69A without proper opportunity.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 69A, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 22.11.2023 arising from the assessment order dated 26.11.2019 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.
The assessee has raised several grounds and challenged certain additions and adjustments made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 69A of the Act.
When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel adverted to paragraph 4 of the first appellate order and submitted that the assessee has responded to the notices issued by the CIT(A) from time to time and uploaded the submissions in ITBA Portal. Despite online submissions made by the assessee, the CIT(A) has wrongly observed that assessee has not complied with any of the notices of hearing. Such observation is totally incorrect and squarely opposed to the facts on record. The ld. counsel thus submitted that the CIT(A) has misdirected himself in law and proceeded ex- parte against the assessee without taking cognizance of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The ld. Counsel next submitted that the first appeal arose out of the best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act and thus urged for restoration of matter to the file of the AO to enable the assessee to demonstrate the bona fides and file corroborative evidences in support of cash deposits and investments under scanner.
In the light of evidences placed before the Tribunal showing acknowledgement of response filed to the notices issued under Section 250 of the Act and in the light of the assertions made on behalf of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the AO rather than CIT(A) for proper appreciation of facts and evidences as may be placed on behalf of the assessee.
It shall be open to the assessee to furnish explanation and adduce evidences in corroboration thereof on the subject matter of appeal before the AO. The AO shall determine the issues involved de novo after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is cautioned to co- operate in the assessment proceedings without any demur.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08 May, 2024.