What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not appearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The assessee's appeals were ex-parte orders before the lower authorities due to the illness of a director. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for non-appearance and noted a similar restoration in a prior assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment orders were justified given the assessee's inability to appear due to sufficient cause.

Civil & Electrical Projects… vs Income Tax Office, Ward - 1 (2) | ITAT Pune 2022

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh V. Kankani

For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Hearing: 01.08.2022Pronounced: 02.08.2022

ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the common order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Pune [‘the CIT(A)] dated 21.02.2019 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively.

2 to 765 & 778/PUN/2019 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned four appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.763/PUN/2019 for the assessment year 2008-09 are stated herein. ITA No.763/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 : 4. At the outset, we find that the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte orders. The appellant filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-appearance before the lower authorities stating that the non-appearance was on account of illness of one of the directors of the appellant company, who was looking after the effusion of the appellant company. The averments made in affidavit remain uncontroverted by ld. Sr. DR. Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellant company is prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from appearing before lower authorities. We also find that this Tribunal for the assessment year 2012-13 in assessee’s own case in ITA No.766/PUN/2019 order dated 16.08.2019 restored 3 ITA Nos.763 to 765 & 778/PUN/2019 the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that these are fit case to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.763/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.764, 765 & 778/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 : 6. Since the facts and issues involved in all the above four appeals are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.763/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.764, 765 & 778/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.764, 765 & 778/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

CIVIL & ELECTRICAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTING CO. (INDIA) PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 1 (2), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments