Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an NFAC/CIT(A) order dated 26.03.2022, which sustained an addition made in an assessment order dated 24.12.2018 passed under Section 144 of the Income-Tax Act. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite notices, and claimed to have been in judicial custody at the time of the assessment order, with the mode of service by the CIT(A) being ambiguous.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to contest the matter on merits. To ensure justice, the issue on merits was restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The CIT(A) was directed to serve fresh notice to the assessee by postal means, simultaneously with an ITBA notice, and then dispose of the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to present its case on merits, considering the assessment under Section 144, claims of judicial custody, and ambiguous notice service.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.03.2022 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)
/learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No. against the order 24.12.2018 passed under Section 144 of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 4(4), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).
Heard and perused the record.
At the time of hearing, none appeared for the appellant.
Record shows that notices have been issued separately. No more opportunity is justified. Accordingly, arguments of learned Departmental Representative were heard.
We find that assessee has raised a ground that he didn’t have sufficient opportunity to contest on merit before the learned authorities below. It comes up that assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act.
In appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), after admitting the appeal, the notices were issued but assessee failed to appear and made no submission. Accordingly, the addition was sustained.
The order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is ambiguous as to what was the mode of service other than ITBA Portal. Assessee he was in judicial custody.
In the light of aforesaid, we are of the considered view that ends of justice will be served by giving an opportunity to the assessee to contest on merits. The issue on merit is restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to serve a fresh notice by postal means simultaneously with notice by ITBA and dispose of the appeal on merits.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes .