Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL & SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal by the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – XXVIII, New Delhi dated 25.11.2013 for assessment year 2008-09.
We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before Tribunal.
When the case was heard for hearing Shri M.M. Miglani, father - in - law of the assesse appeared and submitted that since at the time of original assessment proceedings the assessee was under advanced stage of pregnancy with complication expecting delivery at any moment and confined to strict bed rest was prevented and handicapped the assessee to properly produce her case by supporting relevant material, confirmations, statements and evidence etc. in short time given by the AO for compliance. Shri Miglani prayed that in this situation the assessee was not provided due opportunity of hearing to submit her case during assessment proceedings and to comply with the directions of the AO, Shri Miglani further requested that as the assessee was not provided the sufficient opportunity to produce, adduce and lead to evidence very relevant and substantial evidence for assessment. Therefore, the case may kindly be sent to AO for fresh assessment.
The Ld. DR strongly supported the action of the AO as well as the impugned first appellate order. However he could not controvert this fact that during the assessment proceedings the assessee was prevented to produce his case properly due to advanced stage of pregnancy with complication and she was confined to strict bed rest during this period.
On a careful consideration and rival submissions made by the assessee and impugned first appellate order it is amply clear that the asessee did not comply with the notices and directions of the AO during the assessment proceedings and the assessment was completed ex parte under the best judgment premise. From the appellate order we also observe that the first appellate authority did not properly adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a cryptic order without any groundwise adjudication. Even the additional evidence of the assessee filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has been rejected at the threshold by observing some technical deficiencies which are not a proper way of adjudication for a quasi judicial authority.
On the basis of fore going discussions we are of the considered view that the assessee was prevented due to reasonable and cogent reasons from submitting her case before the AO and the assessment proceedings were completed ex parte under best judgment premise. Furthermore the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed appeal of the assessee without any proper deliberation and by incorrectly rejecting the admission of additional evidence submitted by the assessee that’s too without calling any remand report from the AO and thus her said action is not in accordance with the provision of Rule 46A of the Rules. Hence, we are of the considered view that the entire issue deserves to be restored to the file of the AO to assessment stage for fresh and denovo adjudication and thus the case is restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing for the asessee and without being prejudiced from the earlier assessment and impuged appellate order.