BAIJUNDA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), NOIDA

An ex-parte assessment order came to be passed on 18/12/2022 u/s 144 r. w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the assessment order dated 18/12/2022. The Assessee has also filed an application before the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) after obtaining the Remand Report from the A.O., rejected the application for admission of additional documents and dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 25/01/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted the assessment order has been passed ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Rules. Thus, submitted that the orders impugned of the Lower Authorities are in violation of principals of natural justice. Therefore, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee has not appeared before the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) after calling for the Remand Report from the A.O., rightly rejected the application for admission of additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Rules and further submitted that there is no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the Appeal of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee could not appear before the A.O. and produce any documents during the assessment proceedings, which resulted in passing the Best Judgment u/s 144 of the Act. The application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the Application and ultimately dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. In our considered opinion, considering the fact that the assessment has been framed ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Rules. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence.

In view of the fact that, the assessment has been framed ex-parte, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a liberty to the Assessee to produce all/any documents to substantiate the claim of the Assessee and the A.O. is directed to consider the documents produced by the Assessee and frame the assessment afresh. Needless to say, the Assessee shall be provided opportunity of being heard. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.