DANISH AHMED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2210/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) dismissed the first appeal superficially, without mentioning notice service or giving proper hearing, and failed to address the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The appellant filed an early hearing application for appeals arising from penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, where assessment orders were passed under sections 147/144. The appellant contended that notices were not served, leading to inadequate opportunity of hearing, and the first appeal was dismissed by the NFAC without addressing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeals without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 144

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: Mr. Mayank Patawari, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.05.2024Pronounced: 17.05.2024
1.

Heard and perused the records.

2.

In the captioned appeals an early Hearing Application is filed by the appellant on which Ld. AR has submitted that the appeals arise out of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the assessment orders for these assessment years were passed u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act 1961.

SA No. -147/Del/2024 Meter and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that as the notices were not served, adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee was not given.,

4.

As we go through the impugned orders, we observed that the first appeal was dismissed by the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) in a very superfluous manner, without even mentioning as to when and by what mode of notices of hearing were issued, and if at all assessee / appellant was served.

5.

It also comes up that as First Appellate Authority (NFAC) has not at all touched the merits on the grounds. These aspects could not be defended at all by Ld. DR.

6.

In the light of the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeals for and restore the issues on merits to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing an order fresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

Consequently, the appeals stand allowed, for statistical purpose, in terms of aforesaid direction and early hearing application becomes infructuous.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17 .05.2024

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →