Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
These two appeals, filed by the assessee, against the different orders of learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as the “Ld.CIT(A)”]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. For the sake of convenience, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. First, we will take up the appeal of assessee in pertaining to the A.Y. 2016-17 is taken as a lead case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - Page 2 of 5
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal exparte. The appellant prays that the said order be set aside to the CIT(A) for deciding the case after providing opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 97,39,910/- made by the AO on the ground of difference in the computation of income and gross total income in ITR without properly appreciating the factual matrix of the case. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,76,910/- made on the alleged ground of provision on account of provision Under sec 36(viia) and sec 36(vili). The Appellant prays that the said disallowance be directed to be deleted.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the order passed in contravention to principles of natural justice.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in not declaring the order as void, illegal and bad in law.
6. The Appellant craves leave to add amend any or all grounds at the time of hearing.”
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the submissions made in the assessment proceedings. He also contended that the assessee has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities.
3. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative (“DR”) opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessee was thoroughly negligent and did not pursue his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the absence of the representation on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in passing the exparte order against the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen from the records that Page 3 of 5 admittedly, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed exparte to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) without adverting to the grounds raised and deciding the issue on merits. It is well settled law that the assessee should be given opportunity of being heard for effectively representing his case. At the same time, the Ld. CIT(A) is under legal obligation to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts, we deem expedient to sub-serve the interest of principles of natural justice set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by way of speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and grounds of appeal are restored to Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.
5. Now, we take up the assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2017-18. The identical grounds have been taken in this appeal. For the sake of clarity, all the grounds are reproduced as under: -
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal exparte. The appellant prays that the said order be set aside to the CIT(A) for deciding the case after providing opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18910474 made by the AO on the ground of difference in the computation of income and gross total income in ITR without properly appreciating the factual matrix of the case. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,89,10,949/- made on the alleged ground of provision on account of provision Under sec 36(viia) and sec 36(viii).
4. The Appellant prays that the said disallowance be directed to be deleted.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,34,748/made on account Page 4 of 5 of employee contribution towards provided fund U/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act 1961.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the order passed in contravention to principles of natural justice.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in not declaring the order as void, illegal and bad in law.
8. The Appellant craves leave to add amend any or all grounds at the time of hearing.”
The facts are identical in this appeal. Ld. Counsels for the assessee and Ld. DR have adopted the same arguments as in since the order is ex parte to the assessee. The assessee has demonstrated the sufficient cause for non- appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we deem it expedient to set aside the impugned order for the same reasoning as in for A.Y. 2016-17 and same shall apply mutatis mutandis to A.Y. 2017-18. All the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/08/2025.