Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an ex-parte order from the CIT(A), NFAC, for A.Y. 2015-16. The CIT(A) had noted that communication was sent, but the assessee failed to file any details despite being given several opportunities, leading to the order being passed on merits due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the CIT(A) was justified in not adjudicating the issue on merits given the assessee's consistent failure to provide necessary details. Finding no error or reason for interference, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance in furnishing details, and if the appeal warranted restoration for re-adjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Kapardar i Rajesh Kumar Kapardar Revenue by :Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR Chand Pandya, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 09/06/ /2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09/06/ /2025 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10322146 dated dated 24.7.2024 for the assessment year 2015 assessment year 2015-16.
Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld Sr Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue and Shri DR appeared for the revenue and Shri Rajesh Kumar Kapardar, Rajesh Kumar Kapardar,ld AR appeared for the assessee.
P a g e 1 | 3
It was submitted by ld AR that this an exparte order by ld CIT(A), NFAC. Consequently, the Bench was of the view that the issues in the appeal needs to be restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing toe assessee. This was subject to levy of cost. When ld AR was asked as to what is the reasonable cost that can be paid, ld AR submitted that the Bench may pass an order on merits. Consequently, the order is passed on merits.
A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that in para 4.1 of the order, the ld CIT(A) has categorically brought out the grant of Rule 45 of IT Rules 1962. In para 4.2 of the order, ld CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that communication has been sent to the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee has not filed any of the details before the ld CIT(A). As no details have been filed before the ld CIT(A), obviously, the ld CIT(A) cannot adjudicate the issue on merits. This being so, as the assessee has also not been able to give any reasons for non-compliance despite several opportunities given to the assessee, we are of the view that there is no error n the order of the ld CIT(A) which call for any interference
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.