Atul Singh Parihar Vs ACIT (ITAT Jabalpur)
Responded at AO Level, CIT(A) Appeal Dismissed Ex-Parte – ITAT Jabalpur Remands Atul Singh Parihar’s Case for Fresh Hearing
Assessee challenged reopening u/s 147 & addition of ₹5,45,000/- u/s 69C, contending that payments were out of personal withdrawals & not claimed as business expenditure. He also disputed reliance on a seized diary & initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
CIT(A), Mumbai, however, dismissed the appeal ex parte, citing non-appearance, without considering adjournment requests & written submissions. Assessee argued that this violated principles of natural justice, as no findings were given on merits & even interest charging & reopening validity were not examined.
Tribunal observed that though Assessee had responded at AO level, CIT(A) mechanically dismissed appeal without addressing grounds raised. Considering that substantial issues regarding addition, reopening & penalty were involved, Tribunal held that Assessee deserved one more opportunity.
Accordingly, Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order & restored matter to AO for fresh assessment after giving adequate opportunity of hearing. Assessee was directed to co-operate & avoid unnecessary adjournments.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JABALPUR
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Addl./JCIT Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai dated 14.02.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: –
“1. That the impugned order dated 14/02/2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] is illegal, erroneous, and bad in law.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case and solely relying on the alleged non-appearance of the Appellant.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had submitted adjournment requests due to genuine reasons, which were not properly considered.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,45,000/-under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] made by the learned Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”}.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the Appellant’s explanation that the said amount represented payments made out of personal withdrawals and not claimed as business expenditure.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the addition was based on a misapprehension of facts and without proper verification.
7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
8. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not addressing the Appellant’s contention regarding the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Act.
9. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the fact that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act was based on imprecise charges and was thus invalid.
10. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the principles of the General Clauses Act and Supreme Court rulings regarding dismissal for default without considering the specific circumstances of the case.
11. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the Appellant’s statement of facts and grounds of appeal submitted in Form No. 35.
12. That the Ld. CIT(A) acted against the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
13. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that the impounded hand written diary “Annexure A-5” was a rough notebook containing common entries, and estimates.
14. The Appellant reserves the right to amend, alter, or add to the grounds of appeal at any stage of the proceedings.”
2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being disposed off on the basis of the material available on record.
