Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC/CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act as the assessee failed to comply with notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The assessee requested one more opportunity to explain its case.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to comply with notices from lower authorities. However, considering the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity and undertaking to be more vigilant, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer despite previous non-compliance, and whether a cost should be imposed for such non-compliance.
Sections Cited
144, 147
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 Devesh Poddar, Adv. 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. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 24/07/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. 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 submitted that though no compliance was made by the appellant either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A), one more opportunity may kindly be provided to explain its case as the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the assessee undertakes the responsibilities to be more vigilant in future in making compliance.
Amit Kumar Sarawgi Vs ITO 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative for the revenue supported the action of the revenue authorities as the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities 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 confirmed.
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 27/03/2022. 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), but the assessee failed to comply with those notices and thus the ld. CIT(A) had no option but to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
5. Thus considering the request made by the ld. AR of the assessee, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and the appellant is directed to make necessary compliance to explain its case before the Assessing Officer. However, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is to be paid to Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi (JHALSA) for making no compliance before the authorities below. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.