Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged additions of Rs. 50,54,728/- on account of unexplained cash credit and Rs. 17,18,200/- on account of unexplained expenditure. The Assessing Officer made these additions and the assessee appealed to the Ld. Commissioner.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. Commissioner due to miscommunication, despite opportunities. The Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal found that for proper decision and substantial justice, the case should be remanded.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte decision of the Ld. Commissioner was justified, and if the case should be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
68, 69, 143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 01.07.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
In the instant case, the additions of Rs.50,54,728/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.17,18,200/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act, were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 16.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of M/s. Tulja Bhavani Dhartidhan Private Limited affording various opportunities, preferred not to join the proceedings and also not filed any details or documents and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and by dismissing the same affirmed the aforesaid additions.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.
Having heard the parties and giving thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we observe that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner, first notice was issued for the date of hearing on 26.12.2020 and thereafter subsequent notices were issued after March 2024 only. The Assessee before us claimed that due to miscommunication it failed to appear before the Ld. Commissioner, however, now undertakes to appear and file the relevant documents/details in case, the opportunity is granted to the Assessee by remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner. On the contrary the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.
4.1 Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the Assessee remained un-represented and in the absence of relevant documents/reply the Ld. Commissioner was unable to decide the issues involved in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of bearing heard to the Assessee. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.10.2024.