Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in real estate development, filed its return for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer made additions based on estimated net profit from undisclosed sales and under section 43CA. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 303-day delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits, depriving the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) due to ex-parte dismissal.
Sections Cited
43CA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
order
: January 12, 2026 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate development and construction. For the assessment year 2015–16, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of ₹83,028. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer estimated the net profit at the rate of 8% on undisclosed sales and accordingly made an addition of ₹17,71,120. In addition thereto, an addition of ₹5,60,000 was made Plutus Infrastructure Ltd under section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment was completed accordingly.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution, as the assessee failed to appear or effectively represent its case.
The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 303 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the submissions and the reasons stated, we are satisfied that there existed a reasonable cause preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 303 days is condoned.
It was submitted that since the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte, the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to represent its case and place relevant supporting documents on record. It was argued that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim on merits.
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorities.
We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed solely on account of non-appearance of the assessee, without adjudication on merits. The assessee was thus deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our considered opinion, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Plutus Infrastructure Ltd Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the entire issue is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law and after considering the submissions and evidence that may be filed by the assessee.