Loading judgment…
Facts
This appeal is the second round before the CIT(A) against an ex-parte order. The assessee claimed to have submitted substantial evidence during the second round, including a 156-page paper book, and complied with all notices from the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) maintained that the assessee had not provided adequate details or evidence and had been non-compliant.
Held
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning on 'adequate evidences' to be vague and acknowledged the assessee's submission of substantial evidence. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh readjudication with adequate opportunity to the assessee, provided the assessee cooperates; otherwise, the AO is at liberty to draw adverse inferences.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present evidence and if the CIT(A) properly considered the evidence; and the appropriate course of action when there is a dispute regarding compliance and sufficiency of evidence.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
(निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Patel Minerals, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Chaibasa 4th Floor, B.S.Trade Centre, R.Rd, Holding No.8, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AAJFP 7234 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.S.Paul, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.03.2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014.
It was submitted by the ld AR that admittedly in the assessment proceedings the assessee had not provided the details before the AO. It was the further submission that in the first round before the ld. CIT(A), the order of the ld. CIT(A) was an ex-parte order. It was the submission that the Tribunal had originally set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It was the submission that the impugned order is the second round before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that before the ld. CIT(A) there has been non-compliance. Ld.AR has also placed before us the paper book containing nearly 156 pages consisting of various evidence. Ld. AR also drew our attention to pages 5 onwards of the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) has extracted the written submissions of the assessee. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had also called for a remand report from the AO. It was the submission that even in the remand proceedings the assessee appeared and provided all the details before the AO. It was the submission that subsequently in para 7.3 at page 11 of the order the ld. CIT(A) holds that the assessee has not filed details or evidence in support of its claim. Similarly in para 8.6 also ld. CIT(A) holds that the assessee has most of the time been non-compliant. It was the submission that this is not a case of non-representation. It was the submission that all the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) had been complied with. It was the submission that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. It was the further submission that in the alternative the assessee has no objection if the issues are restored to the file of ld. AO so that the assessee would produce all the details before the AO.
In reply, ld CIT-DR submitted that there seem to be some vagueness in the order of the ld. CIT(A), but he fairly agreed that issues may be restored to the file of AO with a condition that the assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings before the AO, insofar as assessee had been non- cooperative before the AO in the original proceedings.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case shows that the assessee has cooperated before the ld.CIT(A) and has produced substantial evidence before him. Unfortunately the ld. CIT(A) has taken the stand that adequate evidences have not been provided. When an appeal is being heard by an appellate authority, if any further clarification is required, it would be advisable for such authority to call for such clarification. It is easy to reject a claim of the assessee by saying that adequate evidences have not been produced. What is the adequate evidences is a vague term. What is satisfactory for one appellate authority might not be adequate for another. Therefore, it would be advisable for such appellate authority to ask for what clarification and the evidence that the appellate authority requires for being satisfied in respect of any particular claim. An adjudication of an appeal is not one way issue. It is to be discussed and decided. This being so, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal must be restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the set aside proceedings before the ld. AO. Should the assessee not cooperate in the proceedings before the AO, liberty is granted to the AO to draw adverse inference.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 09/10/2025.