AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals o f the assessee are directed against the common orders dated 10.09.202 5 of ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the addition made vide assessment order dated 31.03.2024 were dele ted.
By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 7943 to 7946/Del/2025 as the appellant is the same and facts are similar and accordingly in order to avoid the r epetition, all the appeals are taken up together for disposal, by dealing with the facts in ITA No. 7943/Del/2025 for assessment year 2018-19 is taken as lead case.
Facts in brief are that the assessee company has filed his original return of income for A.Y . 2018-19 on 22 .03.2019 u/s 139 of the Act declaring total income at Rs.36,33,380/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was co nducted on 30.01.2023 by Investigation Wing, Delhi on the assessee, wherein various incriminating evidences were found and proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated against the assessee by issuing no tice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15.11.2013, intimating the asse ssee that its case has been selected for scrutiny. In re sponse to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 14.12.2023, showing the same income as declar ed u/s 139 of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24.10.2024 was issued and served to which assessee filed reply. After consider ing the rep ly of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.5,44 ,408/- u/s 28 of the Act as inco me from business and professio n.
Aggrieved by the impugned assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same observing that despite several opportunities provided to the appellant, they have neither appeared nor filed any written submissions and concluded that the appellant was not interested in pursuing its appeal and accordingly dismissed the same and confir med the addition made.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, assessee is in appeal before us. Common grounds have been raised in all these appeals, the only d ifference is in amount involved. The assessee has raised the following rounds of appeal in IT A No. 7943/Del/2025 (lead case):
“1 .0 That , on the facts and in the circums tances of t he case, the disallowance , imposi tion of tax, and i nteres t with referenc e thereto, as well as the quantifi cation of taxabl e incom e and tax liability, ar e unj ustified, err oneous, and unsustai na ble, and it is prayed that nec essary dir ections be iss ued to the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO ) to grant appr opriate r elief i n accordanc e with the law.
2.0T hat on the facts and circumstances of the c ase the Ld. CIT -(A) has erred in passi ng an ex -part e order without providi ng a fair and a dequate opport uni ty of bei ng heard, the reby vi olati ng the pri ncipal of nat ural justice.
3.0That o n t he facts a nd on circumstances of t he case the Ld. CI T-(A) has err ed i n uphol ding the o rder of Ld . AO as the Ld. AO as no jurisdicti on to frame ass essme nt u/s 147 of the Act as no incrimi nati ng mat erial was f ound duri ng the c ours e o f search.
3.1That on the facts and circumstances of t he c as e t he Ld. CIT-(A) has erred i n upholdi ng the order of Ld. AO, as the Ld. AO erred i n passi ng the assessme nt order in utt er disregard to the provision of the Act and hence t he order pass ed is illegal and void ab initi o.
4.0T hat on the facts and circumstances of the c ase the Ld. CIT -(A) has erred i n upholding the order of the Ld. AO as the Ld. AO erred i n rej ecting t he bo oks of accounts and considering the estimate d GP ratio at the rate of 5% without considering the facts t hat no incrimi nating mat erial belongi ng to tire appellant were found during the course of search.”
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR and examined the reco rd. The ground No. 2 in all these appeals are similar and identical, wherein the issue of passing of the ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A) has been raised, stating that fair and adequate oppor tunity of being heard has not been granted and principle of natural justice has been violated .
The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that ld . CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. As a result, the assessee could not present its case and has not filed the necessary documents/material which has resulted into mis-carriage of justice and has prayed for restoring the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for giving one more effective opportunity of hearing.
The ld. DR on the other hand, while supporting the order of the ld. lower authorities has left it to the discretion of the cour t to consider the submission regarding granting of opportunity of hearing in the larger interest of justice. Considering the submission and examined the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) in para Nos. 4 to 4 .2 has observed a under:
“4 . In consequence to the appeal filed, a ppell ant was given various opport uni ties to present the cas e before CIT(A)-27 Del hi vide various noti ces dated 03.03.2025, 19.03.2025 and 1 7.04.2025 for hearing dat es schedul ed on 17.03.2025, 02.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 respecti vely to serve t he pri nciple o f nat ural justice. B ut no response rec eiv ed from the assessee.
4.1De spit e several opportunities pro vided to t he appellant, the Appellant / AR neit her appeare d f or the heari ng nor filed any writte n s ubmi ssion. Fr om the above details re gardi ng opportunities provided it apparent that appellant has been given more than fair o pportuni ties to present its' case .
4.2The afor esaid circumstances show t hat t he appellant is not i nterested in pur suing it s appeal. In the abs ence of any reply f rom t he appel lant, the matt er is bei ng d ecided ex-parte ba sed on materi al on record . Keepi ng i n view the aforesaid factual position, t he appeal filed by t he appel lant is t heref ore decided on merits.”
We have co nsidered the rival submission and examined the record, 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.
It is evident from the extracts of the impugned order that the effective opportunity of hearing has no t been granted by the ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal on merit. On perusal of the impugned order, it is simply stated that the notices were issued on various dates as find mentioned in par a Nos. 4, b ut there is nothing which suggests that the said no tices were ever served or received by the assessee. In these facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without g iving effe ctive opportunity of hearing. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) by decid ing afresh by giving effective opportunity of hear ing to the asse ssee/appellant who shall present its case before the ld. C IT(A) w ithin 60 days of this order.
In the result, all these appeals o f the assessee are allowed for statistical purpsoes.