RAKESH PREMNARAYAN SHARMA,NAGPUR V. ITO WARD-4(3), NAGPUR

ITA 570/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rakesh Premanarayan Sharma, the appellant, who faced an ex-parte assessment order from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Nagpur, due to non-appearance and non-compliance during the assessment proceedings for the year 2016-17. The first appellate authority, the learned CIT(A), also dismissed the appeal ex-parte citing deliberate non-compliance and non-cooperation from the assessee. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee was a habitual offender in not appearing before the tax authorities. However, the Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present his case, thereby setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24486 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: ISSUING EX
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIK.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.570/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Rakesh Premanarayan Sharma Shop no.13, Opp. Gandhibagh Garden Lohana Mahajan Wadi Road Gandhibagh, Nagpur 440002 PAN – AEWPS1360M ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–4(3), Nagpur ……………. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 29/01/2025 Date of Order – 30/01/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The captioned appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 27/09/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17. 2. It is noteworthy to mention here that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is an ex–parte order rejecting the case of the assessee without going onto the merits of the case, as the Assessing Officer left with no option. Even during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee chose not appear and neither filed any documents and/or evidence despite repetitive directions of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, 2 Rakesh Premanarayan Sharma ITA no.570/Nag./2024 the learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by issuing ex– parte order and the observations of the learned CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal are extracted below:– “3.3 It is seen from the assessment order that deliberate non-compliance on the part of assessee has been occurred. The assessee did not cooperate during the assessment proceedings and never complied with the notices issued by this office from time to time. The attitude of the assessee is totally non cooperative with the department. It also shows the non-willingness of the assessee to complete the assessment proceedings and its intention to delay the tax proceedings. It is the onus of the assessee to prove the sources of the transactions entered into during the year under consideration, which the assessee failed to discharge. Despite being provided sufficient opportunities and time, the assessee chose to remain silent and decided not to bring any material on record. Hence, the AO has left with no other alternative but to complete the assessment proceedings in this case on the basis of factual material available on record in accordance with the provisions of sec. 144 of the I T Act. It appears the non-appearance to notices is deliberate even being aware of it. 3.4 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Gold Leaf capital Corporation Ltd. On 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of 2009) held that a negligent assessee should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the appellant for his negligence. 3.5 In the instant case, conditions laid down u/s 249(3) are not fulfilled and there is no sufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal. I am of the considered opinion that the inordinate delay in filing of appeal cannot be condoned. Therefore the appeal filed is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal is 'DISMISSED'. 3. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the assessee is a habitual offender by not appearing before the authorities below and the learned CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer were left with no option but to dismiss the appeal/case of the assessee without going onto the merits of the issues raised by the assessee. In that event, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) may not be disturbed and prayed for dismissal of the assessee’s appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material available on record and gone through 3 Rakesh Premanarayan Sharma ITA no.570/Nag./2024 the orders of the authorities below. We note that the assessee indeed is at fault by not pursing its appeal for disposal and even not furnished relevant details which resulted in dismissal of its appeal before the learned CIT(A) also. Since the issues raised by the assessee are not adjudicated on merits, therefore, this Bench is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and following the principles of natural justice, therefore, we are of the considered view that one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer. In view of the matter, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/01/2025 Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 30/01/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "