Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Badri Prasad Tibriwal….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant C/o D.N. Dokania & Associates, 103A, Shanti Bhawan, Bank More Dhanbad - 826001. [PAN: ABGPT8114M] vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Deoghar…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances by: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 01, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : April 20, 2023 ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.11.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that there were no responses on behalf of the assessee in respect of different notices of hearing sent by the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee has disputed the above observation of the CIT(A) to submit that the assessee had responded to various notices of the CIT(A). It has been 1
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Badri Prasad Tibriwal submitted that the notice dated 18.01.2021 was responded to by way of filing adjournment request. That further notice dated 21.04.2021 was also responded to by filing reply. The assessee, in this respect, has relied upon the online acknowledgement issued by the Department. Similarly, it has been stated that other notices were also responded to and reply was filed. However, the ld. CIT(A) failed to take note of the different replies filed by the assessee.
Considering the above submissions, we are of the view that interest of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.