SUDESH KUMAR VERMA M/S RAM LAL RAJ KUMAR 75 D NEHRU MARKET DISTT JAMMU 180004,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFCIER WARD 1(3) JAMMU AAYAKAR BHAWAN JAMMU, JAMMU
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 challenged a CIT(A) order that confirmed a best judgment assessment of Rs. 27.08 Lacs made by the AO under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of assessee's representation. The appeal was filed with a delay of 396 days, which the Tribunal condoned after the assessee submitted an affidavit citing unawareness and non-service of the impugned order.
Held
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice and acknowledging potential communication issues in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a directive for the assessee to present and substantiate their case.
Key Issues
Whether a best judgment assessment made ex-parte should be set aside to allow the assessee a proper hearing, especially when there was a delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of order.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 08.12.2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 144 of the Act on 25.12.2019. The registry has noted delay of 396 days, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. It has been stated that the assessee was not aware of the impugned order and the order was never served on the assessee. Upon perusal of these documents, we find that sufficient cause has been established by the assessee to explain the delay. Accordingly, we admit the appeal and proceed for adjudication of the same.
In the assessment order, Ld. AO has assessed income at Rs.27.08 Lacs for want of any representation from the assessee. The assessment was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the possibility of communication gaps during faceless regime, we deem it fit to afford another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. AO. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the assessment is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03 -07-2025
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant
""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF
