Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was directed against the order of the NFAC/CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. Despite due notice, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal for hearing. The Senior Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared and had also not complied with notices before the lower authorities. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering the principles of natural justice, despite non-appearance and non-compliance by the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2025 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 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 14/07/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. At the time of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of assessee, though, the notice of hearing have been duly served on the given address.
3. Submissions of the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue were recorded and the documents have been given careful consideration while the matter is taken as heard. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that sufficient opportunities have already been provided to the assessee as evident from the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. Sr.DR, therefore, submitted that even before the Tribunal, neither the assessee has appeared nor any application for M/s Mica Mold Finserv Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO adjournment has been given. 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 ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 20/12/2018. 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). However, no compliance was made by assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A), in absence of any submission or evidence, confirmed the addition.
5. Now before us, again none has appeared to substantiate its case. 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 ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the