Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal. The original assessment order was passed ex-parte under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to provide replies and opportunities. The assessee argued that they were ex-parte before both lower authorities and requested another chance.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) and could not put forth their defence. While noting the assessee's lethargic approach, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of deciding the lis on merits and restoring the matter to the AO to provide one more opportunity of hearing, with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were justified, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 115BBE, 194C, 194H, 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Naresh Kumar Sewak cuke The ITO 1, Village: Devla, Post: Ramgadh, Vs. Ward- Dungarpur Tehsil: Aspur, Distt. Dungarpur 314 034 Dungarpur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DEIPS 1615 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Shrawan Kumar, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 06/05/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28 /05 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13-12-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1.1 The impugned order u/s 147 of the ITAct. 1961 dated 24.03.2022 as well as the action taken and notices u/s 144/144B or other notices are legal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons or bared by limitation and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed.
NARESH KUMAR SEWAK VS ITO, WARD-DUNGARPUR 1.2 The AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the fats of the case in passing the Ex parte assessment order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law hence the order may kindly be quashed and entire addition liable to be deleted 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex parte order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law, and also erred in law in passing the order without considering the material and details available on record, hence the order may kindly be quashed and entire addition liable to be deleted. 2.1 Rs.1,40,05,100/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs. 1,40,05,100/- made by the AO u/s 69A an account of deposited/credited into the assessee's bank account(s) as alleged Unexplained Money under Section 69A, also erred ignoring the other material, evidence and facts of record also erred. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 2.2. The AO has also grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking the provisions of Sec. 115BBE for taxing the income at the higher rate, also erred in invoking the provisions without have any show cause notice and also not applicable in the present case. Hence provisions of Sec. 115BBE so invoked are also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principle of natural justice the same may kindly be deleted in full.
Rs.41,835/: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs.41,835/-made by the AO on account of contract income as alleged Undisclosed income, also erred ignoring the other material, evidence and facts of record also erred. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of NARESH KUMAR SEWAK VS ITO, WARD-DUNGARPUR the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.
Rs.5,226/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs.5,226/-made by the AO on account of commission income as alleged Undisclosed income, also erred ignoring the other material, evidence and facts of record also erred. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law. Hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.
The AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B & C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, the Bench noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO as the assessee did not furnish any reply before the AO in spite of providing various opportunities and thus the AO passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.1,40,52,160/- and giving bifurcation of the addition as under:- Total income as per return (Since no return of income 0 filed Addition on account of unexplained money (cash 1,40,05,100/- deposited in the bank) Addition on account of undisclosed income (Contract 41,835/- receipts u/s 194C) Addition on account of undisclosed 5,226/- income(Commission/ Brokerage u/s 194H) Total assessed income u/s 144 1,40,52,161 (rounded off) 1,40,52,160 NARESH KUMAR SEWAK VS ITO, WARD-DUNGARPUR It is also pertinent to mention that the assessee had not filed his Income Tax Return for the assessment year under consideration as observed by the AO in his assessment order dated 24-03-2022. 2.2 It is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee with following observations. ‘’7. However, in the interest of natural justice, the case of appellant was examined on merit in the light of grounds of appeal
and Statement of Facts filed. It is seen from the record that the as appellant was non-compliant throughout the assessment proceedings, assessment was completed u/s 144. Further, the additions made by the A.O could not be contested or rebutted during the present appellate proceedings in view of the fact that the appellant has failed to avail of the opportunities provided. In the absence of any substantiation or any documentary evidence filed in support of grounds of appeal, it can only be concluded that the appellant has no evidence or explanation to offer in respect of the additions made in the assessment order that is the subject matter of appeal. Accordingly, being thus found to be without substance, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is ex-parte before both the lower authorities and he may be given one more chance to advance the documents before the AO to settle the dispute in question. 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A).
NARESH KUMAR SEWAK VS ITO, WARD-DUNGARPUR 2.5 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. Addl. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is also noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case for which a cost of Rs.2.000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, the Bench makes it clear that its decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.
NARESH KUMAR SEWAK VS ITO, WARD-DUNGARPUR 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board.