Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Sati Iron and Steel Private Limited, appealed against an order confirming additions. The assessee did not appear at any stage of the proceedings, including before the Assessing Officer (AO), Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A)), and the Tribunal. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the additions in the absence of compliance from the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to comply with notices at all levels, income tax laws are welfare legislation and the benefit of doubt should be given to the taxpayer. The Tribunal acknowledged that non-compliance might be due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and not necessarily deliberate. Therefore, adhering to principles of natural justice, the matter was restored.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and subsequent confirmations are sustainable when principles of natural justice might have been violated due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, despite non-compliance.
Sections Cited
144, 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 13/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 13/02/2025 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 02/02/2024 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 Sati Iron & Steel P Ltd. Vs ACIT adjournment has been given. Thus, the assessee does not deserve any leniency and additions made by the Assessing Officer may be upheld.
4. 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 ex parte under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02/11/2018. We find that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued various statutory notices as recorded in para 2.0 of assessment order. The assessee was also asked in the show cause notice that in case of non-compliance, assessment will be finalised under Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of share capital.
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.
6. 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.