KAILASHKUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 466/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 April 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, allowed the appeals in the interest of justice and equity by restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity for representation.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were directed against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. The assessments were completed ex-parte on best judgment basis, and the CIT(A)'s order was also ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for representation before the AO, despite earlier ex-parte proceedings and non-compliance?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND

Hearing: 23.04.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 06.12.2024 & 31.12.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 and 2018-19.

1.

& 466/CHNY/2025 2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessments for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 have been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act on 20.12.2019 & 13.03.2024 respectively. Further the CIT(A)’s order is also ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the seven notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is not a computer literate and is not familiar with e-proceedings and faceless system adopted by the Department. Hence, the assessee failed to take note of hearing notices, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case.

4.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices & 466/CHNY/2025 issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Since the proceedings before the AO is also best judgment assessment, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2025 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →