Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18 was dismissed for want of prosecution. The assessee's AR contended that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted, while the Departmental Representative argued that sufficient opportunities were provided but the assessee failed to appear or furnish details, resulting in an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in the interest of justice. This decision was contingent on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days and cooperating fully with the Assessing Officer by furnishing all documents and avoiding unjustified adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Jamshedpur/10136/2019-20 dated 06/05/2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
Shri Devesh Poddar, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr.DR appeared for the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld AR pleaded that if this Court grants the assessee one more opportunity by restoring this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer, so that the assessee will be able to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
In reply, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative on the other hand, submitted that despite the ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the CIT(A) has granted several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case but the assessee failed to comply with the notices, ultimately, the orders passed by him is ex-parte order. Before us, ld AR undertakes that he will cooperate the proceedings and requested to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in the present case are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- deposited with Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association to be paid within 60 days from the date of issue of this order. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the set aside proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the documents with its possession before the Assessing Officer to substantiate its claim. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason.