Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is against the order of the NFAC/CIT(A) which confirmed additions made under Section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claims they were not given a fair opportunity of hearing and that non-compliance was not deliberate. The CIT-DR argued that sufficient opportunities were given.
Held
The Tribunal observed that while opportunities were given, the order of the CIT(A) was not adjudicated substantially as per Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A)? Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) was in accordance with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act?
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 40a(ia), Section 250(6)
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 Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Department represented by Shri Shadab Ahmed, CIT-DR Date of hearing 10/01/2025 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 15/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 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 submits that the ld. CIT(A) has not given fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessment was completed on 15/12/2016 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made addition under Section 40a(ia) of the Act against payment of rent and audit fee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer in ex parte order.
The Giridih Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessment was completed in December, 2016 and the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in January, 2017. 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 Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the ld. CIT(A) has provided more than sufficient opportunities to the assessee to comply with the notices but assessee failed to avail such opportunities. The assessee deserve no leniency at this stage.
We have given careful consideration to the relevant documents on record and the submissions of the both the parties. It is observed that total six opportunities were given to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) as stated in para 4 of the impugned order. We also observed that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is not as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of the parties herein have not been adjudicated substantially. 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"