BADRI PRASAD TIBREWAL,BAZAR ROAD, JAMTARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR, DEOGHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 70/RAN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 April 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-response to notices. The assessee contended that they had responded to various notices, including adjournment requests and replies, but the CIT(A) failed to consider them.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's responses to notices, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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:

1.

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’).

2.

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.

3.

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.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →