PURNIMABEN ASHOKKUMAR THAKKAR,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1883/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 January 2025AY 2020-21Bench: DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits, with a direction to the assessee to produce necessary evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act due to the assessee's failure to provide explanations despite multiple opportunities. The first appellate authority dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 101 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the first appellate authority erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR.BRR KUMARSHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Respondent: Shri VK Mangla, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 03.01.2025

O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 02.09.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

1. The assessment order passed u/s.144 r.ws 144B of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s. 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

2.

The assessing Officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs.45,68,687/-. The same deserves to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing. Asst.Year –2020-21 - 2–

3.

The Assessing Officer has provided six opportunities to the assessee to furnish the explanation with regard to the capital gain earned. Owing to the failure of the assessee to furnish any details, an order u/s.144 r.w.s 144B of the Act has been passed by the AO.

4.

Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine, owing to the delay of 101days in filing the appeal.

5.

As there is a clear defect on the part of the assessee and also keeping in view that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits of the case, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the issues on merits of the case. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary evidences which she rely upon before the Ld.CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →