2024 (9) TMI 649 - HC - Income Tax

Dismissal of appeal ex-parte by ITAT - whether petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause and whether the order is against the principles of natural justice? - assessee s only prayer before this Court is to afford one more opportunity to go before the Tribunal and place the facts - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee s conduct cannot be appreciated. Nonetheless, the learned Tribunal being the last fact finding authority, we are of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the appellant to agitate the matter on merits before the Tribunal subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside subject to the conditions that the appellant pays a sum of Rs.1 Lac to the Bar Association, High Court at Calcutta, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. The appellant shall submit the receipt for such payment in the office of the learned Tribunal and upon production of the said receipt for payment of cost as directed above, the learned Tribunal shall take up the matter for consideration and afford one opportunity to the appellant to appear in the matter and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal.
2. Dismissal of the appeal ex-parte by the Tribunal.
3. Shift of onus on the Assessing Officer regarding share subscribers' details.
4. Allegation of perversity in the Tribunal's order based on findings not discernible from lower authorities.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta heard an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant raised substantial questions of law, including the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal ex-parte, alleging a violation of natural justice. The appellant contended that despite providing necessary details and replies, the onus was incorrectly placed on the Assessing Officer to prove the share subscribers' creditworthiness. Additionally, the appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was perverse as it was not based on discernible findings from lower authorities.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel requested an opportunity to present the case before the Tribunal, emphasizing that the non-appearance was not deliberate. The respondents' counsel, however, supported the Tribunal's decision based on the appellant's conduct. The Court acknowledged the appellant's conduct but decided to grant one more opportunity to present the case before the Tribunal, subject to certain conditions.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order with the condition that the appellant pays a specified amount to the Bar Association within three weeks. Upon payment and submission of the receipt to the Tribunal, the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter, affording the appellant an opportunity to present the case on merits and in accordance with the law. Additionally, the stay application was also allowed by the Court.