Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
These appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders, both dated 25.08.2022, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal are as under:
“1. That on the facts of the case Ld. AO and CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing ex-parte penalty and appeal order alleging non-submission of information ignoring the request of assessee to adjourn the matter. 2. That on the facts of the case Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in levying penalty under section 272A(1)(d) amounting to Rs.10,000 in an ex-parte manner. 3. That the impugned penalty order so passed is illegal and wrong.”
& 218/ Ind/ 2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 2 of “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing ex-parte appeal order alleging non-submission of information ignoring the request of assessee to adjourn the matter.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in making addition under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE as unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.1,28,68,000 by alleging bank deposits of appellant remains unexplained in an ex-parte manner.
That the impugned order so passed is illegal and wrong.”
3. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 28.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.3,10,080/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny but the assessee did not file any submissions and, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 04.12.2019 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made addition of Rs.1,28,68,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act vide order dated 01.10.2019 which is again the ex-parte order.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order under Section 144 as well as penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, the assessee filed two separate appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed the ex-parte orders in both these appeals without giving any finding on them.
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It appears that none appeared at the stage of assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings. Before the CIT(A) the assessee was absent, at the same & 218/ Ind/ 2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 3 of 3 time, there was no service of record of the notices given in these orders which states that the assessee has genuinely received these hearing notices before the CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back both these appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested therein by the assessee on merit. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. It is clarified here that once the services are completed after issuance of notice, the assessee will co-operate with hearing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and in case the assessee does not appear, then the CIT(A) will decide accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 20th December, 2022.