Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 is against an order that confirmed an addition of Rs. 58,99,000/- representing undisclosed investments. The lower appellate authority confirmed the Assessing Officer's action without detailed discussion and proper framing of points of determination.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate findings lacked proper determination points and detailed discussion as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee's non-appearance was attributed to communication gaps.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate authority properly adjudicated the appeal on merits without due process, and whether the assessee's non-appearance warranted confirmation of additions without proper discussion.
Sections Cited
143(3), 56(2)(viii)(b), 69, 115BBE, 250(6)
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)
Per Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) :-
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/250/2023-24/1060225217(1) dated 20.01.2024 in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in short (the “Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to both learned lower authorities action making section 56(2)(viii)(b) read with section 69 read with section 115BBE addition of Rs. 58,99,000/- representing undisclosed investment(s), it emerges at the outset with above assistance coming from the parties that the learned CIT(A) herein has quoted tax appellant’s non-appearance in paragraph 5 page 6 of the lower appellate discussion while confirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect.
Faced with situation, learned counsel representing assessee attributed his non-appearance to various communication gap on the one hand whereas the Revenue failed to rebut the clinching fact that the impugned lower appellate finings have neither framed points of determination nor is there any detailed discussion thereupon as per section 250(6) of the Act. Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh appropriate adjudication on merits as per law 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.
Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Mumbai : 10.07.2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai