Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG & SHRI R.K. PANDA
PER R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT
This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 12/07/2023, by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“the learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011-12.
Although, the assesse has raised a number of grounds, however, all these relate to the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ` 4,24,400, made by the Assessing Officer.
Shriniwasa Construction ITA no.297/Nag./2023 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the assesse is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction. It has not filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year. Since the assesse has purchased an immovable property for a consideration of ` 9,25,000 paid in cash, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons in writing and after obtaining the approval of the Competent Authority reopened the assessment and accordingly issued notices u/s 148 of the Act.
The assesse in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, filed the return of income declaring nil income. The A.O. completed the assessment u/s 147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at ` 4,24,000, wherein he made addition of ` 2,25,000 u/s 40A(3) and ` 1,99,220 u/s 40(a)(ia). Since the assesse did not file any submission before the learned CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted the learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assesse. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that adequate opportunity has not been granted by the learned CIT(A). Further, the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit and has dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the assesse should be granted sufficient opportunity to substantiate its case by filing requisite details.
The learned D.R. on the other hand strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the assessee and Shriniwasa Construction ITA no.297/Nag./2023 submitted that despite a number of opportunities granted by the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before him and did not make any submission. Therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) be upheld.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite a number of opportunities granted by the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not make any submission for which the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. At the same time, it is also seen that the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, in the instant case, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and has not decided the appeal on merit which he was required to do. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submission on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the learned Page | 3
Shriniwasa Construction ITA no.297/Nag./2023 CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assesssee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e., on 30/04/2024