GANPATI CONSTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SUPAUL vs. CIT (APPEAL), BHAGALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 218/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 January 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 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 observed that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ganpati Constech Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The assessee claimed that during the assessment proceedings, the company's director passed away, and due to the illness of the director and subsequent death, the case remained unrepresented before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the lower authorities due to the death of its director.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Ganpati Constech Pvt. Ltd. ………….. Appellant Tengraha Sapaul, Bihar-852131. (PAN: AACCG3113F) Vs. DC/ACIT, Circle-3, Purnea .............. Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by: Shri Prashant Kumar, Advocate Respondent represented by: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 21.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.01.2025 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 08.01.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

2.

The assessee in this appeal has taken up the following grounds of appeal:

I.T.A. No.: 218/PAT/2024 Ganpati Constech Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2014-15

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order as well as the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to show that both the orders of the lower authorities are ex parte of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that during the assessment proceedings, director of the assessee company namely, Late Ganpat Yadav was suffering from severe illness and he ultimately died during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the case remained unrepresented before the lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merit and that the assessee be given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

The Ld. DR has, however, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

I.T.A. No.: 218/PAT/2024 Ganpati Constech Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2014-15

5.

Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that in this case, the interests of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is also made clear if the Ld. CIT(A) so require, may call upon remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of any explanation/documents furnished by the assessee. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →