Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax return was selected for scrutiny, but due to non-compliance, the Assessing Officer completed a best judgment assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144, determining a significantly higher income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal ex-parte due to lack of submissions.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 986-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's age and change of CA. It found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was not speaking or reasoned and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, ensuring proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of an ex-parte assessment and appellate order passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing, and the condonation of significant delay in filing an appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 passed in appeal No CIT(A), Gwalior/10356/2012-13 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 09-10, wherein ld CIT has dismissed assessee’s appeal.
At the very outset, it is noticed that the appeal is barred by 986 days. According to the delay condonation Prayer, Assessee is said to be 77 years old super senior citizen. She has no knowledge of computer. Her CA was also changed from Gwalior to Indore on her permanent settlement at Indore. In the interest of justice, we treat the cause of delay sufficient and condone the said delay caused in filing the appeal.
Briefly stating, assessee e-filed her return of income on 30.09.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 10,18,360. The return was revised on 11.03.2010, showing revised income at Rs. 15,93,010. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) r.w.s 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. No compliance was made by the assessee, hence the best judgement assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act was completed vide assessment order dated 26.12.11 and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 2,56,54,850/-.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte.
Assessee has approached this tribunal on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by ld A.O. without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Assessee’s adjournment application was rejected. Perused the records and heard ld Sr D.R. for the respondent revenue.
We notice that during the first appellate proceedings, ld CIT(A) issued notices on 21.12.2020, 27.10.2022 & 31.10.2022 to the assessee for making submissions. However no submissions were made on behalf of the 2 | P a g e assessee. Ld CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order. We, however, notice that the impugned order is neither speaking nor reasoned. In such circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter to the file of ld A.O. who shall pass order afresh in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We direct assessee to make submissions before ld A.O. and cooperate for the early disposal of the case. Needless to say that ld A.O. shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.