Loading judgment…
Facts
An assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, restricting a deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) and making an addition. The Assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard and without deciding all grounds on merits.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order in violation of natural justice and did not address all the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the Assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice and failing to decide the grounds of appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 36(1)(viia)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
(A.Y. 2016-17) National Housing Bank Vs DCIT Core-5A, 3rd-5th Floor, Indian Circle 16(10 Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCN2600H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Anju Goel, CA Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 22/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), dated 29/05/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/05/2023 passed under Section 147 r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by restricting the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of Rs. 5,31,86,500/- as against the claim of the Assessee of Rs. 5,37,37,70,848/- by making addition of Rs. 1,66,82,274/- under the head of profit and gain of business and professional income. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23/05/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/05/2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the order impugned has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.