THE ORIENTAL INSURENCE CO.LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 42(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2374/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: the CIT(A) has resulted in omission to consider the submissions by CIT(A). The CIT(A) thus had no occasion to pursue the submissions made purportedly with reference to A.Y. 2018-19 despite underlying information annexed for the correct A.Y. 2017-18. Thus, the miscommunication has happened on the part of assessee resulting in ex-parte order.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed a clear miscommunication on the assessee's part regarding the assessment year in the e-response, which resulted in the CIT(A) not considering the submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18, contending that written submissions were not considered despite being filed. The CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte because the assessee had mistakenly mentioned A.Y. 2018-19 in the e-response, leading to an oversight of the correctly annexed documents for A.Y. 2017-18.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly passed an ex-parte order when the assessee's submissions were overlooked due to a clerical error in mentioning the assessment year in the e-response.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H” DELHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 26.03.2024 arising from the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the first appellate order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act on several grounds.

1.

3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that the CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte without taking note of the written submissions uploaded by the assessee and has wrongly observed in paragraph no.1 and paragraph no.4 of the appellate order that the assessee has not submitted any written submissions. The ld. counsel thus submitted that the CIT(A) has proceeded in ignorance of written submissions already filed and misdirected himself in law in passing cryptic order ex-parte. The acknowledgement towards uploading of written submissions and paper books dated 01.02.2024 was placed on record. The ld. counsel sought suitable relief in the matter.

4.

The ld. DR for the Revenue did not offer any fresh comment on the other hand what has been stated in the first appellate order.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

6.

It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that a written submissions have been filed on 01.02.2024 which has not been considered. An e-proceedings response acknowledgment was placed on record.

7.

On perusal, it appears that the assessment year has wrongly been mentioned to be A.Y. 2018-19 in the e-response whereas we are concerned with A.Y. 2016-17. However, the paper book tagged relates to A.Y. 2017-18 indeed. Thus, it appears that mistake of incorrect A.Y. 2018-19 on the part of the assessee while uploading the response / written submissions before the CIT(A) has resulted in omission to consider the submissions by CIT(A). The CIT(A) thus had no occasion to pursue the submissions made purportedly with reference to A.Y. 2018-19 despite underlying information annexed for the correct A.Y. 2017-18. Thus, the miscommunication has happened on the part of assessee resulting in ex-parte order.

8.

In the peculiar circumstances, we consider it expedient to set aside the first appellate order and restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after taking into account the oral and written submissions as may be made on behalf of the assessee, if so advised. The CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee to defend its case on all aspects of grievance emanating from grounds of appeal placed before the CIT(A).

9. We, thus without expressing any opinion on merit, restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →