AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal of the asse ssee is d irected against the order dated 10.10.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC , Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appeal was d ismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution as well as on merits.
Delay of 69 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in lig ht of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset would submit that impugned order had been passed without giving effective opportunity of hear ing and the no tice allegedly issued on 23.06.2025, 15.07.2025 and 28.08.2025 were never received or served upon the assessee. It is therefore prayed that the matter may be remitte d back to the ld. CIT(A) for d eciding the same afresh after giving effective opportunity of hearing.
The ld. DR on the other hand would submit that the assessee failed to respond to the various notices issued u/s 250 of the Act and has suffered ex-parte order delibe rately, and as such prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions and e xamined the record. The finding and the decisio n of the ld. CIT( A) as contained in para 4 & 5 would show that the impugned order has been passed without granting effective opportunity of hearing and the same is extracted below as under:
“4 Fi ndings and disc ussion
The appeal filed by the assess ee has been car efully exami ned alo ng with the ass ess ment recor ds, but despite repeated statutory opportuniti es pr ovided through notices dat ed 23.06.2025, 15.07.2025, and 28.08.2025 issued under section 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, t he appellant failed to submit any written s ubmission, explanati on, or evide nce b efor e this office . All communic ati ons were dul y delivered o n t he r egistered e-filing portal and the email addr ess provide d in Form 35, ye t there has be en complete non-c ompliance and no request for adjo urnment or heari ng. Hence, the a ppeal is decided ex pa rte o n the basis of available rec ords. T he assessment order dated 10.03.2025 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B reveals that the Assess ing O ffice r had mad e additi ons aggregating t o Rs.22,49,464/- under the he ad Income from House Proper ty on acc ount of understatement of rental inc ome in r espect of thre e immovable properties at G urgaon by d etermi ni ng the reasonable annual letta ble val ue as per s ecti on 23 (1)(a) of the Act. The Assessi ng O fficer has suppo rted such det ermi nati on with r eference to c omparable r ent data and obj ec ti ve reas oni ng, whi ch the appel lant has not r ebutted by furnis hi ng any doc umentary proof s uc h as contemporaneo us lease d eeds, market-rent evidence, o r bank re cor ds eithe r dur i ng assessment or appel late proc eedi ngs. T herefore, t he fi ndi ngs of the Asses sing Officer remai n uncontroverted and j usti fi ed i n law. Adequate and repeated opportuniti es havi ng be en granted, t he fail ure o f the app ellant to respond am ounts to non-pr osecution. R elyi ng on the pri nciples laid do wn i n CIT v . Multi plan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (38 ITD 320 Del) and CIT v. Ratlam Co al Ash Co. (171 IT R 141 MP), t he appe al is liable t o be dismissed for wa nt of pros ecution and on merits . Acco rdi ngl y, the additions of Rs.22,49,464/- mad e by the Assessing Officer ar e co nfi rmed i n full and the appeal sta nds dis mi ssed bot h for non-c ompliance and on merits under sect ion 250(6 ) r.w.s. 246A of t he Income-tax Act, 1961.
5. Decision
In vi ew of the facts discuss ed ab ove and consideri ng that the appellant has failed t o avai l repeated opportuniti es of heari ng or to furnish any submission or evidenc e in support of the gr ounds of appeal, the matter is decide d ex part e on t he basi s of material ava ilable on r ecor d. The Assessi ng Offi cer has made r easoned addi tions of Rs.22,49,464/- under the head Inc ome from H ous e Property aft er determining the A nnual Lettable Value i n accordance with section 23(1 )(a) of t he Act, and such findi ngs remain unchall enged and un-r ebutt ed at the appellate s ta ge. Hence, t her e i s no j ustification for inte rfer ence. Accordi ngly, the appeal is dismissed f or non-pros ecution and on merits, and the additi o ns made by the Assessi ng Officer are confirmed i n f ull.”
From the above extract of the impugned order, it is evident that there is no material/evidence to show that the notices allegedly issued has been either received for served upon the assessee. In the absence of any material/evidence regarding service of notice or receiving of notice, it cannot be said that opportunities of hearing given to the assessee in this case.
Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under:
“250(2 ) The fol lo wing shall have the right to be heard at the heari ng o f the appeal-
(a)the appellant, either i n person or by an authori zed repres entative;”
Thus, the hear ing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is no t a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natur al justice by the quasi-judicial authority.
In view of the ab ove facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed w ithout effective hearing and principle of natural justice has no t b een followed For these reaso ns, the impug ned order is not maintainable and according ly set aside. T he end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective o pportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) w ithin the period of 60 days of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.