Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions under sections 69 and 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee challenged these additions before the Commissioner, but the appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance and non-prosecution, despite the assessee claiming to have filed documents and requested adjournments.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances, and the possibility of genuine reasons for non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal, dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution, should be remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on merits, considering the assessee's claim of compliance and requests for adjournment?
Sections Cited
69, 56(2)(vii)(b), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.05.2024, 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. assessment order dated 17.05.2023 has made the additions of Rs.28,00,000/- & Rs.4,03,103/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act respectively. The Assessee though challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite sending four notices, made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and dismissed the same on non-prosecution vide impugned order dated 08.05.2024. The Assessee, by drawing our attention to acknowledgment qua filing of certain documents during the appellate proceedings on 02.12.2023, has submitted that the Assessee has complied in the appellate proceedings by filing various documents as it appears from the acknowledgment receipt.
The Assessee also demonstrated that he requested for adjournments of case on 15-03-2024 and 30-04-2024 in response to the notices dated 11-03-2024 and 25-04-2024 requested for adjournments however the Ld. Commissioner did not accede to the requests of the Assessee and he proceeded to pass the impugned order without giving further opportunity. Therefore considering the reasons for non-compliance as genuine and bonafide, lenient view may be taken and the opportunity may be given to the Assessee by remanding the case to the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
Assessee.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of relevant documents/submissions failed to decide the issues involved in its right perspective and proper manner and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution but not on merits, hence for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim.
We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2024.