What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee failed to appear before the AO and CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond control, leading to ex-parte orders. The assessee expressed willingness to represent the case before the AO if given an opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were justified, and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case.

Anurag Singh vs ITO | s.144 | ITAT Indore 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Mittal, CA

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 29.08.2024Pronounced: 30.08.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 20.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.12.2016 passed by learned ITO- 3(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

On hearing learned Representatives of both sides, it emerged that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make submissions before him despite opportunities given.

The CIT(A) has, however, noted that the assessee uploaded submission/ additional evidences in the appeal portal but rejected assessee’s submission/additional evidences on the footing that the assessee had not filed any requisition for filing additional evidences as per Rule 46A. It further emerged that the AO has also passed ex-parte order u/s 144 because of non-compliance by assessee. In the “Statement of Facts” in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A), the assessee mentioned that the proceedings before AO could not be attended due to circumstances beyond control. Ld. AR for assessee, however, submits that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before AO if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to AO for a fresh adjudication. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the Page 2 of 3 hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

ANURAG SINGH,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), INDORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments