MOHAMED AKBAR HUSAIN AHMED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2411/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 July 2024AY 2012-13Bench: the CIT(A) have not been taken into consideration. Contrary to the material on record, the CIT(A) has recorded that no submissions have been filed by the Appellant. In support of the aforesaid submission, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant placed reliance on letters dated 28/01/2020, 18/02/2020, and 17/03/2020 [placed at page, 70 to 89 of the paper-book] filed by the Appellant before the CIT(A). The Learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the aforesaid 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 found that the submissions filed by the appellant were not considered by the CIT(A). Given this oversight, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication after considering the submitted documents. The appellant was also directed to file electronic copies of their submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order by the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal. The CIT(A)'s order was based on a finding of non-prosecution, despite the appellant claiming to have filed submissions. The submissions filed in physical form were not made electronically available to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the submissions filed by the appellant, especially after migration to the NFAC system.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D BENCH, MUMBAI

Date Conclusion of hearing : 22.07.2024 Pronouncement of order : 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order dated 15/12/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 28/12/2019, passed by the Income Tax Officer - 17(2)(3), Mumbai under Section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant submitted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. He further submitted Assessment Year: 2012-13 that the CIT(A) had also given finding on the merits. However, the submissions filed by the Appellant before the CIT(A) have not been taken into consideration. Contrary to the material on record, the CIT(A) has recorded that no submissions have been filed by the Appellant. In support of the aforesaid submission, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant placed reliance on letters dated 28/01/2020, 18/02/2020, and 17/03/2020 [placed at page, 70 to 89 of the paper-book] filed by the Appellant before the CIT(A). The Learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the aforesaid averments/submission made by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant.

3.

On perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A), we find that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed in physical form and thereafter, the same was migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pursuant to the Notification dated 25/09/2020 issued by the Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT). It appears its submissions filed in physical form were not made electronically available to the NFAC. The Appellant also did not respond to the notices issued by the NFAC and therefore, the order was passed by the CIT(A) without taking into consideration the letters/submissions already filed by the Appellant in physical form. Given the aforesaid fact and circumstance of the present case, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice, to set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication after taking into consideration the submissions already filed by the Assessee. This Appellant also directed to file electronically a copy of the submissions filed in physical form. Since the appeal is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) all the rights and contention of the Appellant are left open. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed, and Ground No. 2 to 12 raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous.

2 Assessment Year: 2012-13

4.

In result, in terms of paragraph 3 above, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →