YASH SUGARS LTD,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 263/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 June 2022AY 2014-155 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the non-service of notices. It set aside the Pr.CIT's order and restored the matter to the Pr.CIT for fresh proceedings, emphasizing the need for the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) initiated revisionary proceedings under Section 263 against the assessee's assessment order. Multiple notices for hearings were issued but remained unserved as the assessee had shifted address, leading to an ex parte order by the Pr.CIT.

What were the issues?

Whether the revisionary order passed ex parte due to non-service of notices was valid, and if the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi
For Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28-03-2019 passed by the Pr.CIT-2, Aurangabad u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment in this was completed u/s.143(3) on 21-12-2016. The ld. Pr.CIT observed certain inconsistencies in the assessment order, which, in his opinion, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He issued the first notice to the assessee on 16-11-2018 fixing the hearing on 30-11-2018, which could not be served. Thereafter, he took the assistance of the AO for serving the notice but such an attempt remained partly successful as the notice could be served only through affixture. The second notice was issued on 23-01-2019 fixing the hearing on 07-02-2019 which again remained unserved and was returned with the postal remarks `Left address’. The AO was requested to serve the notice on the assessee, which met with the same fate. The third notice was issued on 22-03-2019 fixing the hearing on 27-03-2019. This notice could also be served by the Inspector of the AO through affixture. In the absence of the assessee participating in the revisionary proceedings, the ld. Pr. CIT declared the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and remitted the matter to the file of AO for redoing the assessment. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the ld. Pr.CIT passed the revisionary order ex parte. Several notices issued by him remained unserved. He directed the AO to serve such notices.

1.

The AO again could not serve the notices physically on the assessee but had to make service through affixture as the assessee had left the address. Thus, it is seen that the assessee was not available at the given address on which the notices for hearing were sent by the ld. Pr.CIT. This appears to be the reason for the late filing of appeal before the Tribunal by roughly 728 days. It has been submitted that the assessee had shifted from the given address and the order u/s.263 dated 28.3.2019 was received only on 08-04-2021, whereafter the appeal was preferred before the Tribunal which was received by it by post on 10-06-2021. In view of the fact that the assessee shifted from the earlier address which led to the non-service of notice issued by the ld. Pr.CIT, we are satisfied that there is a reasonable cause in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal belatedly. As such, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for disposal on merits.

4.

It can be seen that the ld. Pr.CIT disputed the correctness of the assessment order qua the receipt of share capital and the impugned order came to be passed ex parte. In the given circumstances when the assessee had left his earlier address and the impugned order came to be passed ex parte, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of the things if the order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Pr.CIT. We order accordingly. The ld. Pr. CIT is directed to take up the proceedings for revision afresh as per law on merits. The ld. AR has undertaken that the assessee will fully cooperate with the Departmental authorities in this regard.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th June, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 20th June, 2022 सतीश आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��थ� / The Respondent 2. 3. The Pr.CIT-2, Aurangabad 4. The CIT concerned 5. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 20-06-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 20-06-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before JM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →