Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. The AO made an addition of Rs. 5,76,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain on property. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-cooperation and lack of sufficient opportunity.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested one more opportunity to submit facts before the CIT(A). Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee?
Sections Cited
143(1), 250(6), 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Date of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 ORDER, PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against an ex- parte order dated 07.03.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Ld. CIT(A), relating to Assessment Year 2019-20 arising out of order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 21.07.2020.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-
BECAUSE, the order passed by the authorities below is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. BECAUSE, the 'CIT(A)' was unjustified in passing ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing.
BECAUSE, while passing ex-parte order the 'CIT(A)' ought to have considered the merits of the case in the light of ground raised in the memo of appeal.
BECAUSE, even otherwise, an order passed without effectively disposing of the grounds raised
by the appellant is in infraction of section 250(6) of the Act and as such, order so made is otherwise too illegal, invalid and a vitiated order.
5. BECAUSE, upon due consideration of the matter and in the overall circumstances of the case the 'CPC while proceeding under section 143(1) of the Act exceeded its jurisdiction in assessing the Income at Rs.15,09,380/- as against Returned Income of Rs.9,33,380/-.
6. BECAUSE, the CPC' was highly unjustified in making addition of Rs. 5,76,000/- under Long Term Capital gain on Sale of Property ignoring the fact that the amount as mentioned in the registered deed was true and correct and no evidence has been brought on records to suggest that any amount over and above the amount mentioned in the Registered Deeds were received by the 'appellant'.
7. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter the Intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act to the extent making variation in the Income returned by the 'appellant' is bad both on facts and in law.
8. BECAUSE, charging of interest under section 234B is wrong and the same in any case are unreasonable and excessive.” Brief facts of the case:- In this case, vide order u/s 143(1) of the Act, CPC, Bangalore, 3. determined the total income at Rs.15,09,380/- against the return of income of Rs.9,33,380/- by making the addition of Rs.5,76,000/- Long Term Capital Gain on sale of a property.
4. Against the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). As per the facts stated by the ld. CIT(A) in para-4 of his order, the hearing notices were issued on four occasions in which the assessee in reply sought adjournment but no details were submitted. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that final opportunity was given, again the assessee sought adjournment. Taking note of this conduct of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was non-cooperative and it could be naturally be safely concluded that the assessee does not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and lack of genuineness.
Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the issue on the basis of facts available on record. Again, taking note of the fact that no details have submitted, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has failed to bring anything on record to support of its grounds of appeal and to counter the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in passing ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee .
The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the request of the assessee for allowing one more opportunity to submit his facts before the Ld. CIT(A), we deem it fit to set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on this issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of hearing.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2025.