Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an assessment made under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. This assessment included an addition of Rs. 90,53,179 as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard, ignored an adjournment request, and incorrectly stated that the assessee had not filed income tax returns.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte despite a valid adjournment request from the assessee. The ITAT deemed the request for *de novo* adjudication fair and reasonable. Consequently, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allowed to furnish fresh evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard, and whether the confirmation of assessment under section 144 with an addition under section 69A was justified.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
PER M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal in for A.Y. 2017-18 arises out of the order by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056547141(1) dated 26.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ld CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 27.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal before us: 1. “That the Order passed by Ld. CIT (A) dated 26/09/2023 without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in an arbitrary manner is totally illegal, unjust and unlawful.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the request made by the assesse on 20th September 2023 in response to notice dated 14% Sept 2023 for adjournment due to nearby last date of filing income tax return and in an arbitrary manner passed ex-party order. Even no-show cause notice, required as per law, has been issued before passing the order.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed u/s 144 by the Ld. AO without verifying the fact that no notice has been served on the assesse prior to making the assessment due to change in address duly updated in PAN number and IT returns. The assesse is not well versed with the e proceedings as he is not so literate.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed u/s 144 by the Ld. AO in which addition of Rs.90,53,179 was made as unexplained money u s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. The Ld. AO did not bother to examine the past history of the assesse wherein there is a regular cash deposit in his bank accounts due to his nature of business which is brick making and is an unorganised sector.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed u/s 144 by the Ld. AO in which provision of section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 was invoked disregarding the fact that the assesse did not have any unexplained income/money which is not recorded in books of accounts.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in stating the assesse has not filed income tax return for A.Y 2015-16 to 2017-18 whereas the same are duly filed and available on IT portal.
7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred not cared to examine the facts carefully and without applying the judicially interpretations passed an ex-party order which a violation of principal of natural justice. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed u/s 144 by the Ld. AO in which additions were based on mere surmises and conjunctures and the same cannot be justified by any material on record except bank statement. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that assessee had sought an adjournment before the learned CIT(A) on the ground that the Chartered Accountant is pre-occupied with completion of tax audit that was due by the end of Sep, 2023. Disregarding this request, the learned NFAC proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte against the assessee. Before us, learned AR prayed for restoring this matter to the file of learned CIT(A) for effective representation of the appeal. We find the request of the learned AR to be very fair and reasonable considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence, the appeal is restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention, that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of his contentions. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwanted adjournments except due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. With these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are restored to the file of learned CIT(A) and allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2024