Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer had made an addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner due to the Assessee's non-compliance despite receiving multiple notices.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner's decision was ex-parte and lacked proper consideration of the issues due to the absence of supporting evidence from the Assessee. To ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the Assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the Ld. Commissioner, considering the ex-parte nature of the previous order and lack of proper adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 68, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 04.01.2024, impugned herein, passed by the 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. 2014-15.
Mr. Pankaj Jayantilal Joshi 2. Though the Assessee, has filed an application dated 09.08.2024 for adjournment of the case fixed on 14.08.2024, however, on the date of hearing i.e. on 14.08.2024 the Assessee did not appear. We observe from the impugned order that the same is an ex-parte order, hence, we are constrained to decide this appeal by taking into consideration the orders passed by the authorities below.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 20.11.2018 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act has made the addition of Rs.17,56,916/- u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessee though challenged the aforesaid addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of sending three notices, made no compliance either by filing any reply or any document in support of his claim. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner by following the judgment of the Tribunal at Delhi in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITRD 320 (Delhi) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and consequently upheld the addition made by the AO. We observe that the Ld. Commissioner specifically in the absence of any supporting material and documentary evidences was constrained to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee as an ex- parte but failed to decide to decide the issues involved in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality and for the just decision of the case and end of substantial justice, we are inclined to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim before the Ld. Commissioner. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim.
We also direct the Assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential and required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further 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 23.08.2024.