2025 (2) TMI 283 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee gets final chance to present case after failing to deposit tax on surrendered income under Section 115BBE

ITAT Chandigarh set aside CIT(A)'s ex-parte order regarding additional income tax liability under Section 115BBE. The assessee failed to deposit tax on ... Additional Income surrendered tax liability u/s 115BBE - As per AO assessee has failed to deposit the tax as per the additional income as per the provision of Section 115BBE - at both the stages below i.e. before ld. AO and before CIT(A), the assessee has remained dormant and has not effectively pursued anything - HELD THAT:- Almost both the orders of lower authorities are ex-parte meaning thereby that assessee despite opportunity after opportunity has not explained his case on merits. Consequently, there is no effective disposal of the case on merits especially before CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the assessee to put forth his case on merits before ld. CIT(A) as expeditiously as possible. This Tribunal desires disposal of the case on merits alongwith reasoned and speaking order which deals with core of the dispute between assessee and Revenue. The unspeaking/non speaking order by First Appellate Authority is dangerous trend and so also non participation in First Appellate Proceedings by the assessee. We do not want Tax Administration getting clogged by such trend. One more final opportunity be given to the assessee so that ends of justice are met - we set aside the impugned order with direction to assessee to avail only one more opportunity of hearing as and by way of last chance. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered by the Tribunal are:1. Whether the application of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the surrendered income of Rs. 27,18,500 was justified.2. Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to non-appearance of the assessee was appropriate.3. Whether the Tribunal should grant another opportunity for the assessee to present his case on merits before the CIT(A).ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Application of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115BBE imposes a higher tax rate on income deemed as unexplained investments or money under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C of the Act. The section is applicable to income that is not substantiated by the assessee.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO applied Section 115BBE on the surrendered income during the survey, treating it as unexplained. The assessee contended that the income was business income and should be taxed at normal rates.Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's assessment was based on the survey findings where the assessee surrendered additional income. The assessee argued that this was business income, not unexplained money or investments.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the procedural posture of the case, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination by the CIT(A).Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that the income should be taxed as business income but did not make a determination, instead remanding the issue for further consideration.Conclusions: The Tribunal did not reach a conclusion on the appropriateness of Section 115BBE's application, remanding the issue for a detailed hearing on merits.2. Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: An appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to appear or prosecute the case effectively.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance despite multiple notices, applying the principle that the law assists those who are vigilant.Key Evidence and Findings: The record showed that the assessee did not respond to nine notices issued by the CIT(A) over a year.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found the dismissal to be procedurally correct but emphasized the need for a decision on merits.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal balanced the procedural default by the assessee with the need for a substantive decision on the tax liability.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal should not have been dismissed without a decision on merits, warranting a remand.3. Granting Another Opportunity for HearingRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a substantive decision and the dangers of non-speaking orders, directing that the assessee be given a final opportunity to present his case.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the procedural shortcomings and the absence of a substantive hearing on the merits of the case.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied principles of natural justice, directing a remand for a fair hearing.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's position but prioritized the need for a fair adjudication of the issues.Conclusions: The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to present his case.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal held, 'The unspeaking/non-speaking order by First Appellate Authority is a dangerous trend and so also non-participation in First Appellate Proceedings by the assessee.'Core Principles Established: The Tribunal underscored the necessity of decisions on merits and the dangers of procedural dismissals without substantive examination.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case for a hearing on merits, emphasizing the importance of a reasoned and speaking order.