Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The original assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act, treating a cash deposit of Rs. 25,23,000/- as unexplained and adding estimated net profit on balance turnover. The assessee was unable to comply with a notice under section 142(1) of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause for non-submission of documents to the lower authorities and that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment completed ex-parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee was justified, and if the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
69A, 144, 142(1), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE
Ishwar Singh, vs ITO, Ward-1, Barmer, C/o Rajendra Jain Advocate, 106, Rajasthan Akshay Deep Complex, 5th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur PAN : CODPS6393R Present for Assessee Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate and Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Present for Revenue Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addl.CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 22/08/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of theNational Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi[for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’]passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 12/09/2023. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld.ITO, W.1, Barmer, passed under section 144 of the Act, date of order, 05/11/2019.
The Ld.AR argued and stated that the cash was deposited amount to Rs.25,23,000/- in the bank account of the assessee and the Ld.AO treated it as unexplained deposit of cash in the bank account and addition was made under Ishwar Singh section 69A of the Act. Further addition of estimated net profit on balance turnover amount to 89,510/-. Accordingly, total addition works out to Rs. 26,12,510/-.
We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assessment was completed under section 144 exparte with additions under different heads. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued, but assessee was unable to comply with the said notice. So the assessment was framed exparte with additions under various heads. The aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Finally, the appeal order was also passed exparte. The aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us.
The Ld.DR argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities.
Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee has demonstrated reasonable cause for the non- submission of documents before the Ld. CIT(A)& Ld. AO. It is also evident that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity. Nevertheless, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (in short, JAO). The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents and additional evidence, if any, before the Ld. JAO. The Ld. JAO shall consider all such documents and evidence in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice the proceedings before the appellate authority. It is further directed