Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an ex-parte order for AY 2014-15, which was passed by the CIT(A) after rejecting the appeal due to a 2-day delay. The assessee argued that the delay fell within the Covid period, exempted by the Apex Court, and that both the CIT(A) and AO passed orders violating natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal for a Covid-period delay and that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard. Relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement on natural justice in Tin Box Company vs. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide due opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can reject an appeal for a minor delay during the Covid period, and if ex-parte orders without proper hearing violate principles of natural justice, warranting remand for de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual
Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HONBLE & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, HONBLE
This Appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Central, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "NFAC/CIT(A)"] dated 04.12.2024 in respect of assessment year 2014-15 challenging therein ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and AO in violation of principles of natural justice.
Heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that Id. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee by observing that there was delay of 2 days in filing of the appeal and no case was made by the assessee although the delay was covered under Covid period which was exempted by the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court.
We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal as not admitted for delay of 2 days ignoring the vital facts that the said period of delay was exempted by the Apex Court being covid period and that the AO has passed the assessment order exparte qua the assessee.
In our view, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits after granting adequate opportunity by proper service of notice on the assessee and he ought to have disproved the claim of the assessee by rebutting its contention with support of corroborative documentary evidence on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Box Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: "Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done - Fact that the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is assessment order that counts Assessment order set aside and matter remanded to assessing authority for fresh consideration."
In view of the principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to restore back the matter to the file of the Ld. AO to pass de novo assessment after considering the written submission and evidences filed on record and may be filed before him during the fresh Assessment Proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee with a direction that the AO shall issue a Show Cause Notice and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, Assessment order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the file of the assessing officer to pass de novo assessment as per law.
In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25/1/2025 in the open court. (DR. S.SEETHALAKSHMI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:25.1.11/2025 Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By Oder