Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-2016 arose against an order of the NFAC which rejected the appeal in limine for want of advance tax payment, upholding the AO's addition of Rs.1,28,00,000/- under section 69. The assessee did not appear, and the case was proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order did not discuss the assessee's advance tax liability or provide an opportunity to rectify any default. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)-NFAC correctly dismissed the appeal for non-payment of advance tax without affording an opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
249(4)(b), 69, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2015-2016, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060331380(1) dated 31.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
2 ITA.No.1749/Mum./2024 Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges t the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has rejected the assessee’s lower appeal “in limine” for want of payment ofadvanc tax whereby invoking sec. 249(4)(b) of the Act. He appears to have uphold the Assessing Officer’s action making sec.69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.1,28,00,000/- in otherwords for the foregoing sole reason.
The Revenue could hardly dispute during the course of hearing that there is no indication in the CIT(A)-NFAC’s lower appellate discussion about the assessee’s advance tax liability determination as per the provisions of the Act. Nor he appears to have afforded any opportunity to make good the said alleged default; if any. Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be 3 ITA.No.1749/Mum./2024 the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.07.2024