Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who dismissed the appeal during remand proceedings. This was the second round of litigation, with the first round having set aside the issue to the FAA with a direction to adjudicate afresh.
Held
The Tribunal held that the FAA's dismissal of the appeal without awaiting a remand report from the AO on a connected matter, and without affording further opportunity, violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the FAA erred in dismissing the appeal without considering a pending identical issue and without affording proper opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
147, 54F, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Rukmini Vs. Income Tax Officer Priyadarshini Pamidi Ward 12(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:ALRPA4097P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Smt. Rukmini Priyadarshini Pamidi (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-Kolkata (“First Appellate Authority”) dated 14.02.2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The brief facts of the case are that the present appeal for the Assessment Year 2013–14 represents the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. In the first round, this Tribunal, vide its consolidated order dated 05.11.2019 passed in & 874/Hyd/2019 for Assessment Years 2012–13 and 2013–14, had set aside the issue to the file of the First Appellate
Page 2 of 7 Authority with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits, after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Pursuant to the said directions, the First Appellate Authority initiated remand proceedings. However, the First Appellate Authority, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the remand proceedings.
Aggrieved with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that during the remand proceedings, several notices were issued by the First Appellate Authority. It was submitted that in one instance, the assessee sought time of ten days on the ground that she was suffering from viral fever. It was further submitted that in response to the last notice dated 23.01.2025, the assessee specifically brought to the notice of the First Appellate Authority that an identical issue relating to Assessment Years 2012–13 and 2013–14 in the case of Smt. Aare Snigha and for A.Y 2012-13 in assessee’s own case was also pending before the First Appellate Authority. The Ld. AR submitted that in the case of Smt. Aare Snigha for A.Y 2012-13 & 2013-14 and in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2012-13, the First Appellate Authority had already called for a remand report from the Ld. AO, and the said issue had a direct bearing on the case of the assessee for A.Y 2013-14. It was submitted that the assessee became aware of the factual matrix in the case of Smt. Aare Snigha from a notice dated 11.12.2017 issued by the Ld. AO in her case, a copy of which was also filed
Page 3 of 7 before the First Appellate Authority during the appellate proceedings. It was contended that the assessee specifically requested the First Appellate Authority to call for the said remand report from the Ld. AO and to keep the appellate proceedings in abeyance till the receipt of the remand report. However, without considering the said request and without affording any further opportunity of hearing, the First Appellate Authority proceeded to dismiss the appeal. It was thus submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the order of the First Appellate Authority. Inviting our attention to para no. 5 of the earlier order of this Tribunal, the Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal had directed the assessee to cooperate in the remand proceedings, failing which the First Appellate Authority was at liberty to pass an order on merits based on the material available on record. It was submitted that the assessee did not cooperate adequately during the remand proceedings and, therefore, no infirmity can be found in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that this Tribunal, in the first round of litigation, had remanded the issue to the file of the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on Page 4 of 7 merits after providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. AR has submitted that in the case of Smt. Aare Snigha for A.Y 2012-13 & 2013-14 and in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2012- 13, the First Appellate Authority had already called for a remand report from the Ld. AO, and the said issue had a direct bearing on the case of the assessee for A.Y 2013-14. Hence, the assessee had specifically requested the First Appellate Authority to call for the said remand report from the Ld. AO and to keep the appellate proceedings in abeyance till the receipt of the remand report. In this regard, we have gone through relevant portion of page nos. 4 and 5 of the order of the First Appellate Authority which is to the following effect:
“B6] In response to the above notice, the Appellant furnished her reply on 03/02/2025 which is as under:- “Kind reference is invited to the notice u/s 250 of the I.T. Act requiring the assessee to file the written submissions by 3.2.2025. The appeal under consideration is set aside by the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order in and 874/Hyd/2019 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013- 14, to the file of the Honorable CIT (Appeals). A similar case of the group i.e. Smt. Aare Snigha is also pending before the Honorable CIT (Appeals). The appellant filed written submissions in the case of Smt. Aare Snigdha of the same group. The appellant also filed Written submissions for the assessment year 2012-13 in assessee case. For all the years, including the year under consideration, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) appear to have called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. This fact is known to the appellant as the Assessing officer required the appellant to file details. A copy of the letter issued by ITO, Ward-12(1)/ASHPA9875A/17-18 dated 11.12.2017 in the case of Smt. Aare Snigdh is submitted. However, the Assessing Officer did not so far submit the remand report to Page 5 of 7 the office of the CIT (Appeals). The appellant, therefore, requests the Honorable CIT (Appeals)-4, Calcutta to obtain remand report from the Assessing officer and thereafter post the case for hearing. Till such time, appeal may lease be kept in abeyance.”
On perusal of above, we find that the First Appellate Authority has categorically recorded the request made by the assessee seeking that the appellate proceedings be kept in abeyance in view of a similar and identical issue pending in the case of in the case of Smt. Aare Snigha for A.Y 2012-13 & 2013-14 and in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2012-13, for which a remand report had already been called for from the Ld. AO. Thus, the existence of such request and the pendency of a connected matter is not in dispute. We have also gone through the notice dated 11.12.2017 (page nos. 36 to 38 of the paper book) issued by the Ld. AO in the case of Smt. Aare Snigdha, which was placed on record before the First Appellate Authority. On perusal of the said notice, it is evident that the enquiries conducted in the case of Smt. Aare Snigha have a direct and proximate bearing on the issue involved in the case of the present assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, once the First Appellate Authority had taken cognizance of the pendency of an identical issue and had already sought a report from the Ld. AO in the connected case, the principles of natural justice required that either the First Appellate Authority should have awaited the report from the Ld. AO or, at the very least, should have afforded one more effective opportunity to the assessee before disposing of the appeal. The rejection of the assessee’s request and dismissal of the appeal without such Page 6 of 7 consideration, in our view, does not meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authority and restore the issue to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after considering the outcome of the remand report in the connected case and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings. The First Appellate Authority is at liberty to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.