MAHENDRA NARAYAN BHOIR ,RAIGAD vs. NAFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2743/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. Considering that the CIT(A)/NFAC issued notices back-to-back and the assessee remained absent, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for assessment year 2013-14. The appeal was delayed by 50 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution after issuing multiple hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC due to the assessee's absence, despite issuance of multiple hearing notices within a short period, is sustainable. Should the matter be restored for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Hearing: 28.01.2025Pronounced: 31.01.2025

Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mahendra Narayan Bhoir, Vs. National Faceless Near Tahesildar Office AT Assessment Centre, Raigad- 410206. Delhi. PAN : AQVPB6629H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 31.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

There is a delay of 50 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the present appeal within prescribed time limit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection to the condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay of 50 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is an individual. A penalty of Rs.4,95,018/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing Ld. DR as well as on the basis of material available on record.

5.

In this regard, we find that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has issued three hearing notices and since the assessee remained absent the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. We further find that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has issued three notices of hearing i.e. 12.07.2024, 25.07.2024 and for 05.08.2024. All the above three notices were issued back to back within a short period of 24 days and even the impugned appeal order was not passed on merits of the case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & in the interest of justice, without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned ex-parte order passed

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →