2022 (11) TMI 1520 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment framed ex-parte u/s. 144 - CIT(A) as well as the AO passed order without assigning any proper reasons and justification - HELD THAT - We noted that the CIT(A) particularly has not passed a speaking order and even not discussed the basic facts relating to the issue involved in both the orders. But it seems that ample opportunities were provided by the AO and despite that in assessment year 2008-09 the order passed by AO is best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act because the assessee was not attending the matter. In regard to assessment year 2009-10 it is the allegation of the assessee despite assessee producing documentary evidence the AO has not examined properly. In entirety of the facts going through the case records despite opportunities given by the lower authorities the assessee could not avail the opportunities without any reason. No alternative except to set aside the matter to the file of the AO in both the years and the AO will reframe the assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also impose cost on assessee for a sum of Rs.5, 000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon ble High Court of Madras. In term of the above we set aside the orders of lower authorities and allow these two appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment orders passed without proper reasons and justification, Ex-parte assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) without deliberating on merits, Allegations of lack of opportunity to be heard, Setting aside orders to AO for reassessment.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai involved appeals by the assessee against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The common issue in both appeals was the lack of proper reasons and justification in the orders passed by the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte assessments under section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without discussing the merits of the case, raising concerns about the assessment process.

In the assessment year 2008-09, the AO made additions to the opening capital without providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard, resulting in an ex-parte assessment order. The CIT(A) confirmed the order based on the available documents, despite the lack of documentary evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal noted the failure of the assessee to attend to the matter, leading to the best judgment assessment by the AO. However, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for reassessment with a directive to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

Regarding the assessment year 2009-10, the CIT(A) dismissed the issue of long-term capital gain and receivables without adequately considering the submissions and documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO did not examine the evidence properly, leading to an incomplete assessment process. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to be heard during the assessment process. The judgment highlighted the necessity for the AO and CIT(A) to thoroughly examine the evidence and reasons presented by the assessee before making decisions. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the orders for reassessment aimed to ensure a more transparent and just assessment procedure, ultimately upholding the principles of natural justice and due process in tax matters.