Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee filed its return declaring Nil income with a business loss. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs. 29,82,56,38,182/-.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-responsive conduct during assessment and appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice, and whether a last opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, 143(1), 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. NFAC/2020- Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Neha Jain Nemani, Resolution Professional 21/10263124 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 Assessment year [A.Y.] 2021-22, wherein assessee’s appeal has been dismissed ex-parte by the learned CIT(A).
The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22, declaring total income as Nil with current year business loss of Rs. 3,92,12,935/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) r/w 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee did not furnish all required details but only in part. After considering the material on record, learned assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as R. 29,82,56,38,182/-.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte.
Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Neha Jain Nemani, Resolution Professional sustaining the order of the assessing officer passing an ex- parte order sustaining the additions made by learned assessing officer. 5. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing. 6. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties. 7. Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset informed that impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(A) ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order. 8. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) on 09.03.2024 and 08.04.2024 but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order. 9. We notice that the assessee did neither respond to the various notices issued during assessment proceedings nor furnished required details nor respond before by the first appellate authority despite opportunities provided by learned CIT(A). Such an irresponsive conduct of the assessee cannot be Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Neha Jain Nemani, Resolution Professional appreciated. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. 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 in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed as stated hereinabove. 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 29.10.2024.