Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance. The assessee's original return declared an income of Rs. 76,430. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization, and the AO treated the entire cash deposit as income.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the opportunity of hearing provided to the assessee was not adequate and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The Revenue did not oppose the restoration of the matter for a de novo consideration by the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the principles of natural justice were followed during the appellate proceedings and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without providing adequate opportunity.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271AAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 12.10.2023 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 07.11.2019 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. A.Y. 2017-18 Renita Christopher Dias 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 without following the principles of natural justice.
2. That Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,79,000/- which is not income u/s 2(24) of the Act.
3. That Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,79,000/- to the total income of the appellant under section 69 as unexplained money.
4. That Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in imposing and the Ld. Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming imposition and calculation of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
5. That Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act.
That the Assessee carve out leave to add, alter or amend the facts and/or ground of appeal
and to file further grounds and/or facts, as and when becomes necessary or directed by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as mentioned that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 01.08.2017 declaring returned income of Rs. 76,430/- .Notice was issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify value of cash deposit during demonetization to compare with returned income. On 07.11.2019 the learned Assessing officer passed order under section 143(3) in light of insufficient documents and treated entire cash deposition as income in hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the asessee filed an appeal before ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who dismissed the appeal on account of non-compliance by the assessee in ex parte manner.
A.Y. 2017-18 Renita Christopher Dias 4. In the course of hearing before us, the ld.Counsel of the assessee pleaded that during complete Appellate proceedings communication tab was opened on 4.11.2022, however prior to these notice was issued on 26.12.2020 and then only two haring notice was issued dated 4.7.23 and 9.8.23.The first nearing notice issued on 26.12.20 and due to reply was 28.12.20 (2 Days time limit) where assessee could not connect with his Chartered Accountant. The opportunity provided to appellant was not fair enough to prove principles of natural justice. The two hearing notice issued date 4.7.23 and 9.8.23 appellant was not aware whether such notice has been issued as appellant did not know how to operate online portal and give presentation before authorities. The assessee has appointed other Chartered Accountant to take care of my appeal and other related matter. The Assessee was not apprised of anything in relation to the abovementioned first appellate proceeding by his chartered accountant.
4. We have carefully considered the case. The ld. CIT(A) has claimed that despite notice issued for allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee during appellate proceedings, there was no compliance. None appeared before him to support the grounds of appeal
. No written submission was made either. The ld. CIT(A) has also held that there was no substantive compliance from the assessee to explain his A.Y. 2017
18. Renita Christopher Dias case even before him. He passed appellate order dismissing it for non- prosecution. During the hearing, the Bench proposed for restoration of the matter to the ld.CIT(A) for a de novo consideration. The Revenue did not oppose this plea. Thus, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough and compliant adjudication process. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in the set aside remand proceedings for de novo adjudication of the appeal of the assessee filed before him. Needless to state, the assessee will comply with notices and any details sought by the appellate authority without fail, as it will not be allowed any further opportunity of hearing in case of any further non-compliance.
In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2024