Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was filed against an order of the NFAC, Delhi, concerning proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear, and the appeal was proceeded ex-parte. The assessee's counsel was absent, and the Revenue representative argued the case.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the impugned ex-parte order by the CIT(A) lacked detailed adjudication. The Revenue's arguments were found to have no merit due to the absence of detailed adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was legally sustainable due to lack of detailed adjudication and proper consideration of previous tribunal orders.
Sections Cited
271(1)(C), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
O R D E R Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)
Delhi’s DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060913983(1) dated 14.02.2024, in proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed under section 250 of the Act by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), has failed to consider that the appellant has already filed the appeal No. 6367/Mum/2018 and the Hon'ble tribunal has already set aside the penalty order vide order dated 10.01.2020.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not passing the order.
4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
Learned departmental representative has vehemently supported both the lower authorities’ respective findings treating it as a case of concealment of taxable income. We notice in this factual backdrop that the learned CIT(A’s) impugned ex-parte lower appellate discussion has neither framed any points of determination nor there is any detailed adjudication thereupon as contemplated u/s 250(b) of the Act.
Faced with this situation, Shri Manish Ajudiya invited our attention to page 4, para 4 in the learned CIT(A’s) findings that he had afforded multiple opportunities to the assessee which the latter failed to avail. He next took us to para 6, page 7 of the lower appellate order that all the relevant facts have been duly considered. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical arguments once there is no detailed adjudication in the impugned lower appellate order in preceding terms. We accordingly deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A) for its appropriate adjudication subject to a rider that it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. condonation averments in the case file.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2024.