Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s. K K Apparels, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of commission income of Rs.49,41,879/-. The assessment was originally framed by the Income Tax Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given 11 opportunities but failed to provide complete details, exhibiting non-cooperative behavior. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter back for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte and whether the assessee had reasonable cause for not complying with the notices.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश /O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1066120472(1) dated 27.06.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2016-17 vide order date 24.12.2018.
2. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to the first five grounds, which read as under:-
1. 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.
2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. Exparte Dismissal of Appeal 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing off the appeal exparte.
4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant could have derived no benefit by not filing replies / submissions to the notices served on the appellant.
5. For that the appellant had reasonable cause for not complying with the notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
3. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the order of CIT(A) is totally ex-parte and simpliciter for non-prosecution. When the ld.AR was shown the order of CIT(A) that the CIT(A) has deliberated on merits, he pointed out that the CIT(A) has only gone through the submissions of assessee and just reproduced the submissions and negated. It was pointed out to ld.AR that when assessee has allowed 11 opportunities, why he has not filed complete details, he only requested that one more opportunity be given to him in the interest of natural justice. We noted that on merits only the CIT(A) has confirmed the issue of addition of commission income of Rs.49,41,879/- and CIT(A) has practically allowed seven opportunities because first four opportunities are during Covid period. Admittedly, the assessee has not complied with and it seems a non-cooperative assessee. But, in the interest of justice and fair play and to bring all the facts on record, we are inclined to set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand this matter back to his file for fresh adjudication subject to a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras by the assessee within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee will pay this cost and produce the receipt before the CIT(A). In term of the above, the matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 22nd October, 2024 at Chennai.