GOPAL KUMAR,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 284/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 June 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals). The ITAT directed the CIT(Appeals) to serve proper notice to the assessee and pass a fresh order on merits, emphasizing that the mode of notice service and the assessee's actual knowledge were not clear from the CIT(Appeals)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order from the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2015-16, which originated from an order under Section 143(3). The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex parte, despite condoning a delay in filing, without clearly establishing proper notice service or providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee, particularly when the delay in filing the appeal was already condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA
For Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 28.06.2024

The assessee has come up in appeal against the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter

First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”), in Appeal no.

NFAC/2014-15/10167804 for the assessment year 2015-16, arising out of the order dated 30.03.2022, u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”).

2.

Heard and perused the record. At the time of hearing it comes up that amongst other grounds on merits, assessee has raised a ground that assessee did not have reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing before CIT(Appeals).

Learned DR has, however, countered it by submitting that assessee was given due notice of hearing.

3.

As we appreciate the impugned order of CIT(Appeals) it comes up that there was delay in filing appeal before CIT(Appeals) which was condoned. In para 5 CIT(Appeals) observes about notices being issued on few occasions. However, the mode of service of notice and the fact if the notices were served to the knowledge of assessee are not coming up from the impugned order of CIT(Appeals). Thus, proceeding, ex parte, without entering into merits of the submissions of assessee, the appeal was dismissed, which cannot be said to be in accordance with law.

4.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal for statistical purposes and restore the issue on merits to the file of CIT(Appeals) with directions to serve notice upon the assessee and pass an order afresh.

5.

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 28.06.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →