Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against ex-parte orders from the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed that notices were sent to a wrong email ID and their tax consultant did not cooperate, leading to a lack of representation and submission of documents before the lower authorities.
Held
The tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 3,000 on the assessee for negligence. The delays in filing appeals were also condoned.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the violation of natural justice due to ex-parte orders and lack of opportunity to be heard, and the condonation of delay in filing appeals.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 147, Section 271AAC(1), Section 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The present three appeals have been filed by the Assessee, against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2021- 22.
IT No.957, 958&959/Rjt/2025 Bhagu Bharatbhai archand 2. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices were delivered on the wrong email-id, therefore, the assessee could not represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel also submitted that when during the proceedings were going on before the lower authorities, tax consultant of the assessee did not co-operate with the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not file the required documents and details before the lower authorities. Now, assessee is ready with all required details and documents, which are to be submitted before the assessing officer, therefore matter may be resorted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submit required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer, then a cost of Rs. 3,000/- may be imposed on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower authorities.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-parte order and non-speaking IT No.957, 958&959/Rjt/2025 Bhagu Bharatbhai archand order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs. 3,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits.
I note that appeal of the assessee in pertains to penalty u/s. 271 AAC (1) of the Act, and assessee’s appeal in pertains to penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Since, the assessee’s quantum appeal in is remitted back to the file of AO therefore, there penalties do not have any leg to stand.
I note that Ld. CIT(A) did note condone the delay in filing there three appeals before him. The ld. Counsel for the assessee adverted my attention to the respective IT No.957, 958&959/Rjt/2025 Bhagu Bharatbhai archand appeals and affidavit filed in this regard by way of statements, citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay in their three appeals which belong to the same assessee. A perusal of the sufficient cause explained, given me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delays are condoned in these three appeals and matter should be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the assessing officer in the light of the observations as set out above. I hold and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
8.In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes