Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance and absence of the assessee. The assessee had claimed that their legal counsel was occupied with other matters and an adjournment was requested but overlooked.
Held
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim and decide the issue on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and if a final opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 139(1), 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI
Before: SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR
Date of hearing: 30/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30/09/2025 ORDER
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-29, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 28.03.2025 arising out of the order of the Assessing Officer order dated 11.02.2023 for Assessment year 2021-22.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:-
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Id.CIT(A)- 29, New Delhi u/s 250 of the Act is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2. That the Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte on the grounds of non-compliance by the assessee, therefore, the assessee prays that following the principles of natural justice, the impugned order be set aside.
That the legal counsel for the assessee was occupied with time-barring matters related to a pending assessment and had submitted an adjournment application to the Id. CIT(A). Unfortunately, the adjournment request made by the legal counsel in response to the hearing notice dated January27, 2025, was overlooked by the Id. CIT(A), leading to an Ex-parte order being issued. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal Ex-parte without deciding the appeal on merits as laid down in CIT v. S. Chennaiappa Mudaliar (1969) SC (591) and Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills V. Commissioner Excise & Customs (2014) 52 taxmann.com 107 (SC) case. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,67,95,833/- being one percent of the total alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee during the year without taking into consideration all the corroborative evidences filed on record by the assessee during the assessment proceeding. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,67,95,833/- being one percent of the total alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee during the year without taking into consideration all the corroborative evidences filed on record by the assessee during the assessment proceeding. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 19-01-2022 declaring total income of RS,3,96,900/- for the A. ,2021-2022. A search and seizure action was carried out in the case of the Sh. Rupesh Kumar Batra, Sh. Aditya Kumar Jha by investigation Wing of Income Tax department on 10-10-2021 and the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS with the administrative approval. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27-06-2022. Again notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire was issued on 07-10-2022 to the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment after considering the submission made by the assessee and made the addition of Rs.4,67,95,833/- on account of the bogus purchase.
3. Aggrieved the order of the ld. Assessing Officer assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 28-03-2025 dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Shri B.N. Bhattacharjee and another (118ITR 461).
4. Aggrieved the said order of the Ld. CIT(A)the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte on the grounds of noncompliance. Ld. DR has relied the order of the lower authorities. He also submitted that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) after filing the appeal.
We have heard the parties and gone through the material available on record. It is an admitted fact despite opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before the authority for which ex-parte order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Since in the instant case the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal in non-compliance therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide, the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised
by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result the appeal of the assessee was allowed for the statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 .09.2025.