Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were against orders confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee contended that they were not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO and the CIT(A). The assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were provided, there was a lack of compliance from the assessee. However, considering the principles of natural justice and that income tax laws are welfare legislation, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO to provide a fair hearing and pass a fresh assessment order.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities, and whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144
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 Sumit Mittal, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 05/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 05/05/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 19/02/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Both these appeals have similar facts and grounds, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals were clubbed and heard together and are decided by this common order. For appreciation of facts, we take for the A.Y. 2011-12 as a lead case.
Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) have not given fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
& 234/Ran/2024 Nand Kumar Singh Vs DCIT/ACIT The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made various additions without giving fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessment was completed on 31/05/2018 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer in ex parte order. No sufficient and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he states on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in making compliance.
On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the revenue authorities have provided more than sufficient opportunities to the assessee to comply with the notices but assessee failed to avail such opportunities.Thus, the assessee does not deserve any leniency and additions made by the Assessing Officer may be upheld.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31/05/2018. We find that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued various statutory notices as recorded in para 3 of assessment order.
& 234/Ran/2024 Nand Kumar Singh Vs DCIT/ACIT 5. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was again served with various notices to substantiate the various grounds of appeal raised before ld. CIT(A). In response to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission electronically. The ld. CIT(A) after perusing the facts and circumstances of the case and the contents made in the written submissions, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
6. Now before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no fair and reasonable opportunities of hearing were provided to the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that one more opportunity should be provided to assessee and to decide the matter on merit and prayed to restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. It is correct that reasonable opportunities have been provided to the assessee, still, there was no compliance. The facts remain that the income tax laws are within the ambit of welfare legislation which are absolutely separate from penal legislation and therefore, given the facts and circumstances and as per applicable law, benefit of doubt has to be attributed to the assessee/tax payer. There may be circumstances beyond the control of assessee or "vis major" because of which the assessee may not have able to comply with the notices before the revenue authorities. Under the given facts on record, which cannot be said that such non-compliance was deliberate or malafide on the part of assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer considering the fact that assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act, to pass assessment order afresh in accordance with law.
& 234/Ran/2024 Nand Kumar Singh Vs DCIT/ACIT Needless to direct that before passing the order, the Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reasons and to furnish all the details and evidences to justify various grounds of appeal raised by him. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. Similarly in A.Y. 2012-13, we find that in this appeal, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal except variation of additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. We also find that the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal as raised by the assessee in this appeal are similar to the facts and grounds of appeal as raised in for the A.Y. 2011-12, where we have restored the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, this appeal of assessee is also restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. In the result, grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes only.