Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 36,97,900 against Rs. 9,39,900 declared, adding Rs. 27,58,000 on account of unexplained investment in a flat. The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic period and subsequent delays.
Held
The Tribunal observed the significant delay in adjudication and the peculiar circumstances, including the initial hearing period coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognizing the need for a proper adjudication of the issues, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal, dismissed ex-parte, should be remanded for fresh adjudication due to procedural delays and peculiar circumstances, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 69, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, 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 11.08.2023, 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. 2012-13.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 09.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, determined the total income of the Assessee to the tune of Rs.36,97,900/- as against Rs.9,39,900/- as declared by the Assessee. The AO has also made the addition of Rs.27,58,000/- on account of unexplained investment qua purchase of flat u/s 69 of the Act and added the same to the income of the Assessee. The Assessee though challenged the reopening of the case u/s 147 of the Act and the aforesaid addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of sending various notices, neither appeared nor filed any adjournment and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and ultimately dismissed the same and consequently affirmed the aforesaid addition.
We observe that the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner was instituted on 14.01.2020 and first notice for due compliance was sent on 21.01.2021 for 19.04.2021 admittedly during the Covid-19 period and thereafter for two and a half years nothing has happened and subsequently in June and July 2023 the notices were sent to the Assessee, however, the Assessee failed to comply with the notices and therefore the Assessee do not deserve any leniency. However considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as in the absence of the relevant documents/reply, the issue involved in the instant appeal remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and true sense and even otherwise the Assessee’s appeal at the initial stage was fixed during the Covid-19 period and thereafter there was a long gap of two and a half years, we, for the just decision of the case and for substantial justice, are inclined and therefore remanding 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 her 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.
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 13.08.2024.