Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order which was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that their written submissions were not considered, and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with notices, despite timely submissions. The original assessment order was passed ex parte by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's written submissions and evidence, relying on a Supreme Court decision regarding non-adjudication on merits. The Tribunal found that the original assessment order was also passed ex parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 03/08/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:–
“a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s. 142(1) on the ground that he has Jalnawallas Sports Training and Research Centre. reason to believe that income has escaped assessment since the Assessee has not filed its income tax return. In fact, the Assessee has filed its income tax return on 28.06.2013 with ward 22(3)(4) under ask acknowledgement number 203280613005527. b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in treating the cash deposits of one Ms. Lalita Gosain, pan number not reported, who has not filed her income tax return for A.Y. 2011- 2012, as deposits of the Assessee Trust . In fact, the Assessee had submitted income and expenditure account and balance sheet explaining the deposits in the bank. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in passing an ex-parte order of assessing an income/cash deposits, belonging to another assessee, as that of the Assessee Trust. d) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income tax also erred in taking the ground of non- compliance by Assessee to various notices for dismissing the Appeal. In fact, the Assessee has submitted its replies on 05.11.2022 to the notice dated 02.11.2022, again it has submitted its replies on 17.11.2021 to the notice dated 02.11.2021 and again submitted its replies on 16.01.2023 to the notice dated 03.01.2023.”
During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) at the outset submitted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by an ex parte order. The learned AR further submitted that the written submissions filed by the assessee were also not considered by the learned CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
Having considered the submissions and perused the material available on records, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex parte on the basis that the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued for hearing. From the perusal of the copy of the written submissions filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), furnished during the hearing, we find that the assessee filed the written submissions on 17/11/2021, 05/11/2022, and 08/05/2023. From the perusal of the written submission filed on 08/05/2023, we find that the assessee also filed various documents/supporting evidence before the learned CIT(A). However, as evident from the perusal of the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) without considering any of these written submissions/documents, and, inter alia, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Page | 2
Jalnawallas Sports Training and Research Centre.
CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits. From the perusal of the assessment order dated 26/11/2018, we find that the Assessing Officer (“AO”) concluded the assessment on best judgment basis u/s 144 of the Act in absence of complete details being filed by the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the AO. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to furnish all the details/submissions in support of its claim. Needless to mention no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the matter is being restored to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/07/2024