SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,DIMAPU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IMPHAL, MANIPUR

ITA 525/GTY/2013Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 September 2019AY 2006-072 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to pursue his lower appellate proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed late. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the assessee's reasons for the delay and without providing further opportunity for hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the reasons for delay and without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

आयकर अपील�य अधीकरण, खंङपीठ गुवाहाट� , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member

ITA No.525/Gau/2013 Assessment Year :2006-07 Mahendra Kr. Jain V/s. ACIT, Circle-Imphal C/o M/s Binod Store, G.S. Manipur Road, Dimapur, Nagaland, Pin-797112 [PAN No.ABZPJ 0051 G] .. अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Shri Anil, Kr. Agarwala, FCA अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sandeep Sengupta, JCIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 03-07-2019 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 13-09-2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guwahati’s order dated 02.01.2013 passed in case No.Imp-2/2011-12, in proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the sides. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte without foregoing the delay in issue in the lower appeal. The Revenue’s case during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s lower appeal filed on 06.06.2011 was hopelessly time barred since filed against the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 29.12.2008. We

ITA No.525/Gau/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 Mahendra Kr. Jain Vs. ACIT, CirlImphal Page 2 notice from the CIT(A)’s observation in para-2 that the assessee had filed his letter explaining reasons of the above stated delay to various personal security aspects. Learned CIT(A) has proceeded to decline the same without giving any further opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer. All these facts sufficiently indicate that the assessee has been deprived of his opportunity pursue his lower appellate proceedings. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute all these clinching facts before us. We therefore deem it appropriate in larger interest to restore the assessee’s instant appeal for afresh adjudication with three effective opportunities of hearing as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(3) of the ITAT Rules by putting on Notice Board on 13/09/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद#य) (%या&यक सद#य) ( A.L.Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Guwahati, *Dkp 'दनांकः- 13/09/2019 गूवाहाठ� । आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Mahendra Kr. Jain C/o M/s Binod Store, G.S. Road, Dimapur Nagaland, Pin-797112 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-ACIT, Circle-Imphal, Monipur 3. संबं2धत आयकर आयु3त गृवाहाठ8 / Concerned CIT Guwahati 4. आयकर आयु3त- अपील / CIT (A) Guwahati 5. ;वभागीय �&त&न2ध, आयकर अपील�य अ2धकरण, गूवाहाठ8 खंङपीठ / DR, ITAT, Guwahati 6. गाडA फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ Sr. Private Secretary (on tour) आयकर अपील�य अ2धकरण, गूवाहाठ� ।

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →