NIFTY VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 327/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 December 2023AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was not sustainable as it did not follow the procedure of determining points of dispute and recording reasons as required by Section 250(6). The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee claimed that a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted as their adjournment request was not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was valid without adhering to the prescribed procedural requirements for disposal of appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad

Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

1.

Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Nifty Vincom Pvt. Limited Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.02.2023 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of one Shri Rakesh Kumar Daga, Director of the assessee-company pleading therein that on the last date of hearing fixed before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority, the assessee has applied for an adjournment and prayed that hearing he adjourned upto 25th February, 2023. This application was made on 15th February, 2023. According to the assessee, that it only sought a time of 10 days from the ld. CIT(Appeals), but ld. 1st Appellate Authority has decided the appeal on 24th February, 2023 without the assistance of the material ought to be supplied by the assessee. He prayed that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals).

3.

With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out that the ld. 1st Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on account of non- prosecution. In the concluding paragraph, ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that there was no compliance either by the assessee- company or by the subscriber companies. This procedure is not in consonance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, whereby ld. 1st Appellate Authority is required to determine the points in dispute and thereafter record the reasons

Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Nifty Vincom Pvt. Limited on those points. Therefore, this order is not sustainable. We set aside the impugned order and restore all the issues to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →