SHABEER BABU KIHAKKUM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER., WARD -2(2), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 173/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 June 2022AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing on merits, allowing the assessee to present their case and lead fresh evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed late by 70 days, citing the COVID-19 pandemic extension granted by the Supreme Court. The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order after the assessee failed to appear despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to COVID-19 extensions and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) after an ex parte order was passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing
  • 432 ITR 206
    432 ITR 206 · 2020 · SC
    182 citing
  • 421 ITR 314
    421 ITR 314 · SC
    172 citing

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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP :

1.

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the ex parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on 13-11-2021 in relation to the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 70 days. In support of the delay, the ld. AR submitted that the appeal was filed in March, 2022 and the delay is covered by the extended period granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to surge in Covid-19 cases in the country. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte and urged the Bench to grant one more opportunity to represent the case before him.

3.

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits.

4.

It is seen that the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) determining total income of the assessee at Rs.20,12,670/- as against the returned income of Rs.5,34,210/-. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte after recording in para 4 of the impugned order that three opportunities were given to the assessee, which were not availed. In the absence of any supporting material from the side of assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid factual background, I deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). The impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In such fresh proceedings, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence as he considers expedient for his case.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th June, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →