Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was rejected for non-prosecution despite multiple opportunities. The assessee had filed written submissions, but it was unclear if they were considered due to the shift to the NFAC system.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by the CIT(A). However, considering that the assessee's written submissions might not have been taken on record, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the assessee's written submissions, especially in light of potential procedural issues with the NFAC system?
Sections Cited
250, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
The captioned appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056974354(1) dated 11.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2015-16.
Shri Rana, Staff represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
An adjournment application filed. Reason mentioned is the death of a close family member. It has been specifically informed that adjournment application if filed does not mean that adjournment will normally be granted and that counsel should be present or proxy counsel should be present to take a date. Some staff from the office of Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd. AY 2015-16 the counsel appeared. The adjournment application is rejected. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted ten opportunities to the assessee to represent its case right from 05.12.2018 till 03.10.2023 even after giving fair opportunities there has been no representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal for non-prosecution.
We have considered the orders of the lower authorities as also the paper book filed by the assessee. It is noticed that the assessee has filed a written submission in the physical form before the Ld. CIT(A)-24 and the same has been filed in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) on 02.01.2019. It is also noticed that there is a remand report of the AO dated 09.08.2019. It is also noticed that the assessee has received remand report on 21.08.2019. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the appeal has been filed electronically. The written submissions of the assessee in regard to the remand report of the Assessing Officer have been considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution. It could be a case where the written submissions filed by the assessee in physical form had not been taken on record when the appeals were shifted to the NFAC system. This being so and in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who shall re- adjudicate the issue on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the set aside proceeding and provide all the information as desired necessary for adjudication of this appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.