Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed multiple appeals against orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, for assessment years 2009-10, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2010-11. The assessee argued that assessment orders suffered from jurisdictional flaws and natural justice violations, and that submissions made during manual hearings were not considered when appeals shifted to the faceless mode.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, noting that the assessee failed to upload necessary documents and appeal documents to the NFAC despite multiple opportunities and notices. The Tribunal found no justifiable reasons for the assessee's non-appearance in the faceless mode and observed that the grounds raised before it differed from those before the CIT(A).
Key Issues
1. Whether assessment and first appeal orders were invalid due to jurisdictional flaws, natural justice violations, or arbitrary additions. 2. Whether the assessee's non-compliance with faceless assessment procedures justified the dismissal of appeals.
Sections Cited
Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri Sanjay Goel, A.R. and Shri B.K. Ishwar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 07/03/2024, 23/08/2023, 07/03/2023 and 06/03/2023 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2010-11 respectively. As all the issues in all these appeals relate to the common issues, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order. For appreciation of facts, we take for the A.Y. 2009-10 as a lead case.
/Ran/2024 & 198 to 200/Ran/2023 Bhanu Pratap Shahi Vs DCIT 2. Shri Sanjay Goel, ld. A.R. and Shri B.K. Ishwar, ld. A.R. are represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Rajib Jain, ld. CIT-DR is represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice under Section 143(2) is bad in law and also there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. When the ld. AR was specifically asked as to what is the error in the order of the ld. CIT(A), it was a submission that the appeal had been originally filed in manual form but has been shifted into the NFAC form and the submissions made by the assessee during the manual hearings have not been uploaded nor considered by the ld. CIT(A). It was a submission that the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is perverse. It was a further submission that even the assessment order is liable to be quashed in so far as adequate opportunity has not been granted to the assessee.
In reply, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have considered the submissions of the assessee. A perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) shows that multiple opportunities have been given to the assessee as has been extracted by the ld. CIT(A) in page 5 of his order when shifting of the manual to the faceless had taken place. It was made incumbent on the assessee to upload the papers and the appeal documents before the ld. CIT(A) in the NFAC, admittedly, the assessee has failed to do that. The ld. CIT(A) has also recorded that he has issued notice to the assessee that no submission has been received nor a clear copy of assessment order was uploaded. Even after this, the assessee has failed to comply. It is beyond comprehension as to why /Ran/2024 & 198 to 200/Ran/2023 Bhanu Pratap Shahi Vs DCIT the assessee is not willing to appear in the faceless mode and is adamant upon only representing in the physical mode. If the assessee was really interested in disposing his appeals, he would have made his submissions before the ld. CIT(A) even in the faceless mode. As the assessee has not been able to give justifiable reasons for non-appearance before the ld. CIT(A) in NFAC mode and the assessee is unable to show how the order of CIT(A) is erroneous or perverse. We find no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). It was also be mentioned here that there is absolutely no issues which have been raised before the ld. CIT(A). Further it is also noticed that the grounds raised
by the assessee before the Tribunal which reads as follows: “1. Impugned Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is jurisdictionally flawed: That impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act is jurisdictionally flawed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 143(2) of 1961 Act and therefore first appeal order dated 07.03.2024 is also invalid. Both order may please be quashed and set aside. 1.1 Impugned Assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) is invalid being based on invalid notice issued u/s 143(2) of 1961 Act dated 30.09.2020 which is in violation of mandatory applicable CBDT instructions on the subject and therefore first appeal order dated 07.03.2024 is also invalid. Both order may please be quashed and set aside. 1.2 Impugned Assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) is invalid being based on invalid approval of CCIT Ranchi qua notice u/s 143(2) so first appeal order dated 07.03.2024 is also invalid. Both order may please be quashed and set aside; 1.3 Impugned Assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) is invalid being passed without valid show cause notice (scn) issued prior to assessment as per principle of natural justice so first appeal order dated 07.03.2024 is also invalid. Both order may please be quashed and set aside; ON MERITS: ABRITRARY AND NON APPLICATION OF MIND ON PART OF LD AO AND LD CIT-A
2. That impugned order passed by first appellate authority (national faceless appeal centre) u/s 250 of 1961 Act dated 07.03.2024 is /Ran/2024 & 198 to 200/Ran/2023 Bhanu Pratap Shahi Vs DCIT totally arbitrary and erroneous in so far as "confirmation"/ "sustenance" of impugned additions are concerned, 2.1 That Id CIT-A erred in not deleting the addition of Rs 147,928 / on a/c of alleged "low drawings" which was arbitrarily and perfunctorily made by Ld AO without any application of mind as evident from patent /cursory look to "reasoning" given qua said impugned addition, 2.2 That ld CIT-A erred in not deleting the addition of Rs 25,45,000/- on a/c of alleged "investment in name of others" which was arbitrarily and perfunctorily made by Ld AO without any application of mind as evident from patent/cursory look to "reasoning" given qua said impugned addition, 2.3 That ld CIT-A erred in not deleting the addition of Rs 18,92,500/- on a/c of alleged "investment in name of others" which was arbitrarily and perfunctorily made by Ld AO without any application of mind as evident from patent/cursory look to "reasoning" given qua said impugned addition; 2.4 That ld CIT-A erred in not deleting the addition of Rs 606,06,140/-on a/c of alleged "investment in name of others" which was arbitrarily and perfunctorily made by Ld AO without any application of mind as evident from patent/cursory look to "reasoning" given qua said impugned addition; PERVERSE CIT-A ORDER 3. That impugned order passed by first appellate authority (national faceless appeal centre) u/s 250 of 1961 Act dated 07.03.2024 is without considering any of the written submission filed by assessee and replies filed during assessment proceedings therefore first appeal order is totally "perverse" and contrary to material available on case record; PRAYER (RELIEF SOUGHT): A) TO QUASH THE UNDERLYING ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY LD AO FOR WANT OF VALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICITON AND SO HELD IMPUGNED FIRST APPEAL /NFAC/CIT-A ORDER U/S 250 IS ALSO INVALID B) TO DELETE ALL THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE IN IMPUGNED ASST ORDER AND ARBITRRAILY SUSTAINED IN FIRST APPEAL ORDER C) TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE BOTH LD AO AND FIRST APPEAL ORDERS IN TOTO D) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SUITABLE RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD/MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL.” The above grounds raised by the assessee are totally different from the grounds that have been raised before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has also not filed a requisite