Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) NFAC, alleging denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee claimed to be in judicial custody during the first appellate proceedings, preventing participation. The Assessing Officer also passed an order for want of evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the orders were passed ex-parte due to non-appearance and the assessee claims to have not been aware of the proceedings, the issues should be restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and AO were sustainable without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
O R D E R Per Bench
These are appeal appeals filed by the assessee against the separate separate orders of the ld CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi NFAC, Delhi dated 12.2.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2013 NFAC/2013-14/10196941 and NFAC/2014-15/101692265 15/101692265 for the assessment years 2014 s 2014-15 & 2015-16, respectively.
P a g e 1 | 4 & 232/Ran/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 15-16
Smt. Rinku Singh, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and ShriSharwan Kumar Jha,ld AR appeared for the assessee.
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) NFAC has passed the impugned orders exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was the submission that during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee was in judicial custody and, therefore, he was not aware about his income tax proceedings being taken up. It was the submission that due to this reason, the assessee was not able to participate in the proceedings and submit any evidence in support of the claim. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has also passed the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on account of non-production of materials. He submitted that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would be in a position to produce all the evidences to substantiate his claim before the Assessing Officer.
In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that on account of non-appearance before the ld CIT(A), the orders were passed exparte by the ld CIT(A) by upholding the additions made by the AO. It is also noticed that the Assessing Officer has also passed the order u/s.147/144 of the Act for want of evidence. However, before us, ld AR undertakes that the assessee will represent the matter if one more opportunity is P a g e 2 | 4 & 232/Ran/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 15-16 allowed. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues raised in both the appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.1,00,000/- per each appeal to be paid to Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. In the event, the assessee fails to comply with the direction of the Tribunal and submit the receipt before the Assessing Officer, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) stands confirmed.
In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 11/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 11/06/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Harjeet Singh, H.No.8, Line NI-1, Manifit, TELCO, Jamshedpur 2. The Respondent: National Faceless Centre, New Delhi 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order P a g e 3 | 4 & 232/Ran/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 15-16 Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi P a g e 4 | 4