Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 was filed with a delay of 270 days. The appeal arises from an ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 144 and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was remitted back.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity before the AO and CIT(A) and if the case should be remitted back for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 21.09.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 25.12.2019.
There is a delay of 270 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The assessee has filed condonation petition stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is condoned accordingly.
At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that an addition of Rs. 30,43,605/- was made by the A.O. in ex- parte order and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) ex- parte. He, therefore requested for one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O.
The Ld. A.R has contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee either before A.O or before Ld. CIT(A) and both the orders have been passed ex-pare and therefore, the case may be remitted back to the A.O for fresh consideration.
The Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the orders of A.O as well as Ld. CIT(A), we find that both the orders have been passed ex-parte for the non-compliance by the assessee. The Ld. A.R has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits, therefore the case may be remanded back to the A.O for adjudication on merits. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the A.O subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for his fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 27th December, 2024.