Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal in default. The assessee's return of income for AY 2012-13 was Rs. 3,92,687. The case was reopened, and the AO made an addition of Rs. 7,96,00,000 as unexplained cash credit.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple notices, leading to dismissal in default. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Mumbai– 26/10361/2017–18 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 Deepak Sudhija Assessment year [A.Y.] 2012-13, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee.
The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee filed return of income on 30.03.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 3,92,687/- for A.Y. 2012-13. Due to high value transactions and tangible information received by the department, the case was re-opened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering the assessee’s response, AO made addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 7,96,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee's appeal in default of the assessee.
Assessee filed this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee's appeal ex-parte without affording an opportunity of hearing.
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.
Learned AR has submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal in default in violation of the principle of natural justice. Prayed to set aside impugned order.
Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by issuance of notices on five Deepak Sudhija 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 the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the first appellate authority on aforesaid five occasions. Learned CIT(A) observed that the appellant assessee was not interested to file details during appellate proceedings. Hence, dismissed assessee’s appeal in default of 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 while passing order, even in absence of assessee. We are conscious of the fact, that assessee has not turned up before the first appellate authority in response to the notices issued on five 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 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.
Deepak Sudhija 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.04.2024 is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 08.08.2024.