Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2016-17. The Revenue noticed understatement of income, and during assessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to show cause notices. The Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs. 4,29,114/- u/s 144. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in default.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) was expected to state points for determination and reasons for the decision as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Although the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on four occasions, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative, and to refrain from seeking adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was in violation of principles of natural justice due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee and dismissal in default.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH
(Assessment Year : 2016–17) Jitendra Salunke Vs. Income-tax Officer-42(2)(3) B/4 72, Tenament, Kautilya Bhavan, Vithhal Chavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Marg, Bandra (East), Near Damodar Hall, Mumbai-400051. Parel, Mumbai-400012. PAN/GIR No. AVAPS2290K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Poojan Mehta Revenue by Shri. R. R Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement 03/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2015- 16/10315470 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Jitendra Salunke Assessment year [A.Y.] 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee.
Briefly stating the facts, that assessee filed his return of income on 29.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,69,017/- for A.Y. 2016-17. Revenue noticed that assessee understated his income by excluding certain receipts. During the assessment proceedings, assessee did not respond to the show cause notices. Hence, learned assessing officer assessed income u/s. 144 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 4,29,114/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal in default of assessee.
Assessee filed this second appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that the notices were not sent through NFAC and impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing.
We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties.
Jitendra Salunke 6. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by issuance of notices on four occasions by learned CIT(A) but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order passed by the first appellate authority.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that assessee filed first appeal with the delay of about 265 days. Learned CIT(A), however condoned the said delay on the basis of reasons stated in form 35. The first appellate authority issued notices to the assessee on four different occasions but for no avail, Hence, the appeal was dismissed in default of the assessee.
We notice that learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, the decision there on and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. We are conscious of the fact, that assessee has not turned up before the first appellate authority in response to the notices issued on four different occasions. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the Jitendra Salunke first appellate authority for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed.