Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order confirming additions and penalties. The assessee claimed the lower authorities dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adequate opportunity and failed to consider submitted evidence. The grounds included erroneous confirmation of addition under Section 69A, non-consideration of evidence, denial of a fair hearing, and unjustified confirmation of penalties under Sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution without considering the merits. The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority should adjudicate issues on merit. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to restore the grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits and evidence, violating principles of natural justice? Whether additions and penalties were justified?
Sections Cited
69A, 271AAC(1), 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.11.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. Erroneous Confirmation of Addition under section 69A: The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,85,54,560/- made by the AO, ignoring financial documents submitted with Form No.35.
2. Non- Consideration of submitted evidence: The CIT(A) failed to consider financial documents, violating principles of natural justice.
3. Failure to provide adequate opportunity of being heard: No communication of notices was received denying a fair hearing.
Unjustified confirmation of penalty under section 271AAC(1): The penalty of Rs.23,13,274 was wrongly upheld despite genuine reasons.
Improper confirmation of penalty under section 272A(1)(d): The penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed despite valid medical reasons for non- compliance.
Page 2 of 3 6. Violation of Principles of natural justice: The CIT(A) passed the order without fair opportunity for representation.”
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that both the lower authorities have dismissed the appeal ex- parte to the assessee without giving adequate opportunities of being heard to the assessee. It is further contended that the submissions of the assessee were not considered. He further urged that an opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee at least for making effective representation before the First Appellate Authority.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the lower authorities. He contended that the assessee failed to furnish the relevant evidences in support of its claim. Therefore, the authorities below were justified in making the additions and dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
4. Heard, the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution by the assessee without adverting to the grounds on merits of the case. It is well settled that the First Appellate Authority should adjudicate the issues on merit that related to the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts, we deem it fit and proper and to sub-serve the interest of principles of natural justice hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the grounds afresh and by giving clear finding on the grounds raised by the assessee by way of speaking order. Needless to say that the assessee would provide all the information which is relevant and necessary for adjudication of grounds of appeal. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/06/2025.