Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, which affirmed an addition of Rs. 87,49,400/- under section 69A. The lower appellate authority made this addition ex-parte without properly framing points of determination.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC's order did not effectively comply with the requirements of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, and there appeared to be a communication gap. Considering this, the assessee was granted one more opportunity before the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC's ex-parte order, affirming the addition of unexplained money, was passed without proper adjudication as per statutory requirements, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
Sections Cited
69A, 144, 250(6), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) & Shri Girish Agrawal (AM)
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”, Delhi’s Din and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056372489(1) dated 21.09.2023, in proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in short “the Act”.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges from the outset during the course of hearing that the NAFC, the lower appellate ex-parte discussion; affirming the Assessing Office’s action making section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs. 87,49,400/-, has not effectively complied with the rigor of section 250(6) requiring framing of points of determination followed by detailed adjudication thereupon.
Learned DR vehemently argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation in Assessing Officer’s section 154 assessment framed on 26.4.2019. She could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the impugned lower appellate finding herein in paragraph 7.1 involves instance(s) of a prima facie communication gap between the assessee, his counsel’s end as all the notices herein remained un-complied with. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is a fit case wherein the assessee deserves one more efficient inning before the learned CIT(A) in the foregoing backdrop. We order accordingly subject to the rider it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility to plead and prove all relevant facts; by way of supportive evidence or additional evidence; as the case may be, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2024.