M/S. CHITRADURGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,CHITRADURGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 409/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 July 2023AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's lack of knowledge about the ITBA portal led to non-compliance with NFAC notices. Therefore, the NFAC's order was vacated, and the case was remitted back to the NFAC for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chitradurga Urban Development Authority, appealed an ex-parte order from the NFAC for AY 2016-17. The assessee claimed the NFAC erred by not considering their lack of familiarity with the faceless appeal scheme and the ITBA portal, leading to non-compliance with hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's reasons for non-compliance with hearing notices due to unfamiliarity with the faceless appeal system.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 11,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Suash K.R., D.R
Hearing: 05.07.2023Pronounced: 05.07.2023

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is directed against order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the assessment year 2016-17 dated 22.3.2023. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial-to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte on the ground that the appellant did not respond to the hearing notices.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the faceless appeal

M/s. Chitraduga Urban Development Authority, Chitradurga

Page 2 of 4 scheme was newly introduced and therefore, the appellant was not aware of the procedure that all the hearing notice§ will be issued only to the assessee's registered email ID and therefore, could not file all the responses.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that the appellant responded to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act providing the requested details by the learned assessing officer and not grossly negligent without taking any action to the above said notice issued.

5.

That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have disposed off the appeal on merits.

6.

That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying the exemption u/s.11 of the Act even though the appellant is eligible for claiming the exemption.

7.

That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in law and facts in delaying the exemption u/s.11 of the Act by assuming that proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act is applicable to the appellant.

8.

That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act is applicable to the appellant.

9.

That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by treating the activities carried out by the appellant are in the nature of trade and commerce and not of charitable nature.

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. made submission on ground No.2 that the NFAC has given notices of hearing to the assessee as follows: Date of notice Date of hearing Remarks fixed 01.01.2021 05.02.2021 No reply 21.10.2021 05.11.2021 No reply 07.04.2022 22.04.2022 No reply 18.10.2022 01.11.2022 No reply 13.12.2022 28.12.2022 No reply 08.02.2023 23.02.2023 No reply

M/s. Chitraduga Urban Development Authority, Chitradurga

Page 3 of 4 2.1 However, the assessee has not complied to the above notices on the reason that assessee’s Principal Officer was not well versed with the ITBA portal and the ld. A.R. prayed that an opportunity of hearing may be given to the assessee before NFAC to present assessee’s case afresh.

3.

The ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and submitted that assessee has not made use of the opportunities given by NFAC. Hence, the issue may be decided by the Tribunal on merits only.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, various notices were issued by the NFAC which were not complied by the assessee. It was explained by the ld. A.R. that it is due to their poor knowledge about ITBA portal. Hence, in our opinion, it is appropriate to vacate the order of NFAC and remit the entire issues to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we have already remitted the issue to the file of NFAC, we refrain from commenting anything on the merit of the issues raised before us.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →