MR. RAHUL TULSHIRAM PATIL,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 5 , PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1025/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits even ex-parte. It was found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merit. Therefore, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was against the order of NFAC. The assessee failed to appear for hearings despite notices, and an adjournment request was rejected by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC properly adjudicated the appeal on merits when the assessee failed to appear? Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Hearing: 04.06.2025Pronounced: 05.06.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 11.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

2.

When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that assessee failed to comply to the first two notices issued by ld.CIT(A) on 24.01.2025 and 12.02.2025 and thereafter adjournment request made on 20.02.2025 was rejected. Ld.CIT(A) referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee & Other reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but should be effectively pursued. However, Ld.CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merit as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order.

3.

Under the given facts and circumstances and there being no objection raised by the ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it proper to restore all the issues raised before us, to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication for which reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 05th day of June, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →