Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 2,55,09,300/- and Rs. 3,27,01,457/- on account of disallowance u/s 69A and adhoc addition. The assessee challenged these additions before the Ld. Commissioner but failed to respond or provide documents, leading to an ex-parte decision against them. The assessee has appealed this decision.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to prosecute the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner despite opportunities. However, considering the circumstances and the need for substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the case should be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision due to the assessee's non-prosecution, considering the need for substantial justice.
Sections Cited
69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, 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 13.06.2024, 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 Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 19.12.2019 has made the additions of Rs.2,55,09,300/- & Rs.3,27,01,457/- respectively on account of disallowance u/s 69A of the Act and adhoc addition. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite sending various notices neither responded nor sought any adjournment and in fact not pursued its appeal. Therefore the Ld. Commissioner, in the constrained circumstances, specifically in the absence of submission and/or material which the Assessee has failed to file, decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and consequently affirmed the aforesaid additions by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.
At the outset, we observe that registry has raised an objection qua short payment of appeal filing fee by Rs.9,500/-. The Assessee before us though claimed that as the Ld. Commissioner has decided the appeal as ex-parte but not on merit, therefore the Assessee has made the payment of Rs.500/- as appeal filing fees but not the prescribed fee @ Rs.10,000/-, however agreed to deposit the remaining/short payment of Rs.9,500/- within 15 days from the date of hearing i.e. 03.09.2024, hence this controversy is resolved.
Coming to the merit of the case, we observe from the impugned order i.e. despite affording various opportunities, the Assessee neither availed the same nor filed any adjournment and/or relevant documents/reply and therefore the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee for non-prosecution and dismissed the same in limine but not on merit. Though we are not appreciating the conduct of the Assessee for non-compliance however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the issues involved before the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of relevant reply/submissions and documents remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, hence, for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. We further clarify that this order would be subject to payment of short fee of Rs.9,500/-. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.09.2024.