NIRBHAI SINGH H.NO. 151, BOUNKRA DOGRAN LUDHIANA ,PUNJAB V. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT- NFAC DELHI JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I(5), LUDHIANA , PUNJAB

ITA 1078/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Nirbhai Singh, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the violation of the principles of natural justice, as the NFAC did not consider the assessee's submissions dated 29.05.2024, nor did it discuss them in the appellate order. The appeal was initially dismissed ex parte for non-prosecution despite a written adjournment request and partial compliance by the assessee. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705986 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1078/Chd/ 2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nirbhai Singh H.No.151, Bounkra Dogran Ludhiana, Punjab-141008 बनाम The ITO Ward-1(5) Ludhiana, Punjab ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CTLPS7425M अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/06/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 23 days. 3. After considering the reasons for condonation explained by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act, as 2 well as the addition of Rs.1,09,61,099/- made under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained bank deposits. 5. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that the order passed by the NFAC suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. It was submitted that though the assessee had filed submissions dated 29.05.2024 in response to notices issued under section 250, the same were neither considered nor discussed in the appellate order. It was further submitted that the appeal was dismissed ex parte for non-prosecution despite a written adjournment request and partial compliance. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find merit in the contention of the learned AR that the NFAC has not dealt with the written submissions dated 29.05.2024, which were admittedly filed in response to the notice for hearing. The appellate order proceeds to treat the appeal as not admitted due to non-compliance and absence of representation, without dealing with the merits of the case or the submissions filed. 6.1 It is settled law that disposal of an appeal without considering the written submissions and material on record results in violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC), wherein it was held that denial of opportunity to rebut the case of the Revenue renders the order liable to be set aside. 6.2 In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the Assessing Officer. 3 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/07/2025 Sd/- Sd/- मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल लिलत क ुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "