9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 629 - AT - Income TaxEx-parte appeal decided by CIT-A - Validity of reassessment proceedings - No compliance to notice the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) - addition on the basis of AIR information that the assessee has sold immovable property - HELD THAT - Appeal of the assessee is being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR . A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the appeal has been decided ex parte. Although the assessee has filed written submission explaining the defect in mentioning the assessment year as an inadvertent error, find the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the same summarily rejected the appeal as defective and further observing that there is delay of more than four months in filing of the appeal. No opportunity whatsoever has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee about the delay in filing of the appeal. Considering in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case - Appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Ex parte order confirming addition made by AO and validity of reassessment proceedings. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was against an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) confirming an addition of ?32,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14. The AO reopened the case due to non-compliance by the assessee after issuing notices under sections 148 and 142(1). The AO completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee as long-term capital gain chargeable at 20%. The assessee challenged the addition and the validity of the reassessment proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to comply with the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in an ex parte order by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of more than 4 months in filing the appeal and a non-curable defect in mentioning the assessment year as AY 2009-10 instead of AY 2013-14. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the delay and the incorrect assessment year as non-curable defects, stating that the explanation provided by the appellant did not align with the facts. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the appeal was defective and non-est due to the mentioned reasons. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the appeal was decided ex parte by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Despite the written submission by the assessee clarifying the error in mentioning the assessment year, the Ld. CIT(A) summarily rejected the appeal. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, directed the issue to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate its case. The assessee was instructed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) to present its case, with the Ld. CIT(A) having the liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity to be heard. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for procedural fairness and granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the addition and the validity of the reassessment proceedings.
|
