NEW VISION LASER CENTRES (KILKATTA) LLP,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 229/AHD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 September 2022AY 2018-192 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have investigated the reasons for the reduction in loss, even if the appeal was ex parte. The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue properly by not ascertaining the facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a summary assessment order under section 143(1) was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-submission of grounds. The original assessment restricted the claimed loss significantly. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal when he dismissed it without examining the facts leading to the restriction of loss. Whether the CIT(A) has a duty to ascertain facts even in ex parte proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA

Hearing: 07/09/2022Pronounced: 08/09/2022

(Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee by Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Thawani सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 07/09/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)( hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 31.3.2022 pertaining to Asst.Year 2018-19.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee or any application seeking adjournment was filed.

3.

I have noted from the orders of authorities below that the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal against the intimation made on him under section 143(1) of the Act in the case of summary assessment done on the return filed by the assessee for 2 the impugned year. A perusal of the said intimation reveals that adjustment was made to the assesses returned income by restricting the loss claimed by the assessee from Rs.43,85,819/- to Rs.61,718/-. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that, despite sufficient opportunity provided, no submissions were filed before him in the faceless appeal proceedings.

4.

I am of the view that even if the ld.CIT(A) perforce had to decide the appeal ex parte, he should atleast have gone into the facts of the issue and determined the reasons why the assessee’s claim of loss was reduced. I find that nether the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act points out reasons for reduction in the loss so claimed by the assessee nor the ld.CIT(A) made any effort to find out the same. Even if the assessee did not cooperate it was still imperative for the Ld.CIT(A) to have atleast found out what the facts of the case/issue were which are all part of record of the department and could have been easily ascertained by him. It cannot be said therefore that he has adjudicated the issue. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the ld.CIT(A), who is directed to first determine the reasons why losses were so reduced and thereafter adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Needless to add, the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set aside proceedings.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →