Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in business as a contractor and earning income from house property, did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of unexplained cash credits and income from house property. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) decided the appeal ex parte.
Held
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte, which was against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the ex parte order passed by the NFAC was justified, and whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to present his case. Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were proper.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 24, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 16.06.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 04.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-3(2), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in passing an ex parte order without providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present his case despite being aware of the appellant's circumstances, existence of sufficient grounds and evidence intended to be placed on record.
2. That the CIT(A) has erroneously confirmed the addition of Rs. 91,40,236/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash credits, without Page | 1 Shyam Singh Yadav appreciating the fact that the appellant was running a legitimate business during the relevant period. 3 That the CIT(A) failed to take into account that the amount in question was reflected in the appellant's Form 26AS, with the payer deducting Tax at Source (TDS). This evidence clearly demonstrates that the receipts were business income and not unexplained or unaccounted credit. 4 That the AO failed to allow credit of TDS Rs.1,31,032 while computing the Tax 26AS, which were either on record or available on portal 5 That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 17,78,091/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the head "Income from House Property". The addition was made without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6 That the AO incorrectly computed the income from house property by disregarding the actual facts related to the property, including the documentary evidence to be provided. The addition was made without a proper basis and was confirmed by the CIT(A) without due consideration. 7 That the AO failed to account for the appropriate deductions under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act and did not consider the actual rent received from the property, which resulted in an erroneous computation of income. This oversight was not rectified by the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings 8 That the impugned demand of Rs. 90,51,880/-which is a disputed demand be kindly stayed till decision in the appeal 9 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly considering the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the appellant's case. 10 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without proper justification or consideration of the specific facts of the case. 11 That the appellant reserves the rights of alteration, addition, deletion and/ or modification in the grounds of appeal
at the time and/or before disposal of the appeal.”
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has claimed before the ld NFAC that he was engaged in running a business as contractor and also earning income under the head income from house property and business. But he had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. On perusal of the Page | 2 Shyam Singh Yadav order of the ld NFAC, we find that the ld NFAC had decided the issue ex parte. Hence, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to file of ld NFAC for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with ld NFAC for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05/02/2025.