MANSHARAM KAUSHAL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA 430/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 February 2025AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the order to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Although the appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's non-prosecution, the CIT(A)'s order lacked the required reasoning. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. Furthermore, considering that the assessment order was also passed ex-parte by the AO due to the assessee's non-response, and in the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in the hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mansharam Kaushal, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated December 6, 2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This first appellate order arose from an assessment order dated June 8, 2021, passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee had not prosecuted the appeal before the CIT(A) on the scheduled hearing dates. The AO had also passed the assessment order in the absence of a response from the assessee. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) complied with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while dismissing the assessee's first appeal due to non-prosecution. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its Authorized Representative (AR), argued that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision in its order, despite dismissing the appeal. The assessee also asserted willingness to make representations before the AO. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the learned CIT-DR, did not explicitly argue on the compliance with Section 250(6) but agreed with the assessee that the case should be remanded to the AO for adjudication. The Revenue acknowledged that the assessment order was passed based on material available before the AO in the absence of a response from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Soumya Bomb, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Hearing: 19.02.2025Pronounced: 28.02.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 06.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 08.06.2021 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and the orders of lower-authorities perused.

3.

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. We observe that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for restoring to him for a proper adjudication.

4.

However, Learned Representatives refer Para No. 2 of assessment- order to show that the assessment-order has also been passed by AO on the basis of material available before him in absence of response from assessee.

Therefore, Ld. Representatives of both sides are ad idem that the Bench should remand this case to the file of AO for an apt adjudication. Ld. AR for assessee further asserts that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before AO. In view of this and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the Page 2 of 3 hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

5.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 28/02/2025

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →