CIT(A) Failed to Consider Filed Evidence: ITAT Restores Income Tax Appeal With Cost to PM Relief Fund [Read Order]

The Mumbai Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), has set aside an ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and restored an income tax appeal for fresh adjudication, observing that the appellate authority failed to consider the documents filed in the paperbook before dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal directed reconsideration on merits after imposing a monetary cost payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The appeal filed by Smita Thackeray challenged the order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07. The dispute arose from reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, based on information shared by the French authorities under the Indo-French Fiscal Convention (Treaty) of 1992.

The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment in the absence of cooperation from the assessee. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing absence of representation and failure to substantiate the grounds.

It was contended through written submissions that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ignored documentary evidence and submissions running from page 1 to 134 of the paperbook filed in support of the appeal.

The Bench consisting of Judicial Member Sandeep Gosain and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant held that the appellate authority is duty-bound to adjudicate the grounds on merits after considering the documents and submissions on record. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with directions to reconsider the evidence and pass a reasoned order after granting adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal also imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the assessee, to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund, with proof to be filed before the appellate authority within 30 days. It cautioned that the assessee should cooperate during the proceedings and avoid frivolous adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, without expressing any view on the merits of the reassessment.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates