Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming additions as unexplained income and investment, and denying a deduction. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice from the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address, resulting in ex-parte orders.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive notice, leading to ex-parte orders from both the AO and CIT(A). Upholding the principle of natural justice, it was deemed necessary to provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities are valid without providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee?
Sections Cited
Sec. 80-C, S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Assessment Year : 2013-14 Amandeep Kaur, बनाम The ITO, W/o Shri Bhupinder Singh, Ward, Moh Rajan, Rahon Town, Nawanshahr District Nawanshahr स्थधयी लेखध सं./PAN NO: AVFPS3980C अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing : 16.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on the following Grounds: 2. Grounds of appeal are as under:-
263-Asr-2024 Amandeep Kaur, Nawanshahr 2 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC Delhi, has erred in law & facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,85,000/= as unexplained income of appellant.
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi has further erred in law & facts of the case in confirming the investment of insurance amount as unexplained investment..
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi Further also erred in law & facts of the case in further confirming the action of the ld. AO. in denying the deduction to the assessee u/s. 80-C
That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10190527 has erred in passing order dtd. 20.05.2024 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").
That the impugned order under appeal is arbitrary and contrary to law & facts of the case, hence, deserves to be cancelled.
That the appellant craves leave to add / alter or forgo any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.
3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted during the proceedings before us that the Assessee did not receive any notice either from the Assessing Officer or from the CIT(A) because of 263-Asr-2024 Amandeep Kaur, Nawanshahr 3 the reason that notices by both the authorities below were sent on earlier Counsel’s e-mail which were not brought to the notice of the Assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is an ex- parte order and similar appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is also an ex-parte order. Keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are of this considered opinion that any final fact finding should not be done without giving opportunity to the Assessee to he heard. Therefore, this case deserves to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for passing an order de novo, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the A.O. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.