Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were against orders of the NFAC/CIT(A) that confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide a fair opportunity for hearing, and an inadvertent mistake led to a document not belonging to the assessee being filed. The revenue argued that sufficient opportunities were provided.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was not as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, and while opportunities were given, there was no compliance. Considering principles of natural justice and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal decided to grant one final opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) provided a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee; whether the non-compliance was deliberate or due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), 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 Nishant Maitin, F.C.A. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 31/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. Both these appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 27/06/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively as per the grounds of appeal on record. Both these appeals of the assessee are common facts and grounds, therefore, both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and being decided by this common order. For appreciation of facts, we take for A.Y. 2015-16 as a lead case.
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. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that & 179/Ran/2023 Sangeeta Roy Vs ACIT earlier, the assessee entrusted the matter to CA Shri Braj Kishore Jha to act as an authorised representative for making timely compliance before the department. During the course of compliance, certain document dated 18/01/2018 detailing agriculture income (sale of milk) was filed through signature of CA Braj Kishore Jha. The said document did not belong to assessee and appears to have been inadvertently furnished before the Assessing Officer. In the said document, neither the name nor the signature of assessee is mentioned. The earlier authorised representative did not attend the subsequent proceedings and also did not inform the assessee of the inadvertent mistake so committed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has earned agricultural income by sale of wheat, paddy and other crops and declared the same in the return of income so filed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessment was completed on 07/12/2017 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made addition of Rs. 57,80,580/- on account of unexplained credit. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer in ex parte order. No sufficient and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). 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.
3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ld. Sr.DR for & 179/Ran/2023 Sangeeta Roy Vs ACIT 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.
4. We have given careful consideration to the relevant documents on record and the submissions of the both the parties. It is observed that total five opportunities were given to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) as stated in para 3 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" because of which the assessee may not have able to comply with the notices before the NFAC/ld. CIT(A). Under the given facts on record, which cannot be said that such non-compliance was deliberate or malafide on the part of assessee. Therefore, in the interest of principles of natural justice, we are inclined to provide one final/last opportunity to the assessee and accordingly the order of NFAC/ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is also directed that this being the final/last opportunity, she should file all the relevant documents and evidences before NFAC/ld. CIT(A) and represent her case on