PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, KALAKERI,AT POST KALAKERI vs. ITO WARD 3 BIJAPUR, VIJAYPUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the contentions of the assessee's counsel and the absence of serious objections from the DR. Considering the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the NFAC due to non-representation, despite multiple notices. The assessee's counsel argued that one notice was issued during the COVID pandemic, and the subsequent notices had a short gap, preventing compliance. The assessee also failed to represent the case before the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, given the circumstances of non-representation and the pandemic period.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi dated 07/04/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/ 250/ 2023-24/1062174434(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.
On perusal of the ld. CIT(A) order, we note that there were effectively 3 notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing but there was no representation by the assessee. In the absence of any co-operation by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. However, the ld. AR before us contended that one of the notices was issued by the ld. CIT(A) during the COVID pandemic period and, therefore, the assessee could not make any compliance. Furthermore, 2 notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing within a gap of 8 days only. As per the ld. AR, the ld. CIT-A should have given one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case in the interest of justice and equity. Further, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee also failed to represent the case before the AO and, therefore, he prayed to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. The ld. AR has also taken responsibility for the necessary compliances during the assessment proceedings and assured us not to seek any adjournment without just cause.
On the other hand, the ld. DR did not raise any serious objection if the matter is set aside to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the facts stated above and the responsibility taken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, and in the interest of justice and equity, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
