Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the separate impugned orders of even date 30/03/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12 and 2012–13, which in turn arose from separate assessment orders passed under section 143(3) as well as under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act.
Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. ITA no.2028/Mum./2023 ITA no.2029/Mum./2023 ITA no.2030/Mum./2023 2. In the interest of justice, since there is a slight delay of one day in filing the appeals by the assessee, we hereby condone the delay.
During the hearing, at the outset, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee (“learned A.R”) submitted that the assessee could not comply with various notices for hearing/ written submission issued by the learned CIT(A), and thus, the impugned orders have been passed ex– parte qua the assessee. The learned A.R. further submitted that in all these appeals, the assessee was directed to furnish Written Submissions, information, and documents, inter-alia, on/or before 23/03/2023, on which date the assessee sought adjournment before the learned CIT(A) till 07/04/2023. However, the learned CIT(A) without considering the adjournment request, passed the impugned orders on 30/03/2023.
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned D.R”) could not show us any material to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. However, the learned D.R. submitted that numerous opportunities were granted to the assessee to furnish its Written Submissions and documents in support of its claim against the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the orders ex–parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in appeals before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned A.R. and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. ITA no.2028/Mum./2023 ITA no.2029/Mum./2023 ITA no.2030/Mum./2023 Assessing Officer. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeals on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As these appeals are being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee on merits do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/09/2023