SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

PDF

ITA 312/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 July 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds that Form 35 was not properly filed, nor were the statement of facts, grounds of appeal, or particulars of appeal fee payment. The assessee argued that the defects were not substantial and that principles of natural justice were violated as notices were not served properly.

Held

The Tribunal found that the defects pointed out by the CIT(A) were not substantial, especially if the hardcopy of the appeal file was perused. The Tribunal also noted that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

Key Issues

Whether the dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on technical grounds without considering the merits and violating principles of natural justice is justified. Whether the defects in filing Form 35 and other related documents were substantial enough to dismiss the appeal.

Sections Cited

Section 143(3), Section 10(23C)(vi), Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 312/JP/2024

For Appellant: CA &, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@

Hearing: 23/07/2024Pronounced: 24/07/2024

Per contra, ld. DR representing the Revenue has relied upon the findings of ld. CIT(A), but, at the same time, not objected to the prayer of the AR of the assessee for setting aside the matter and remand thereof to CIT(A).

We have considered rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. We find that in this case, the defects as pointed out in the order of the ld. CIT(A) are in fact no defects, if the hardcopy of the appeal file physically is perused.

ld. CIT(A) issued notices dated 22.01.2021, 30.04.2021, 20.06.2023, 26.09.2023 and 26.12.2023 to the assessee. As regards these dates, ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had sought for adjournment, in the impugned order, there is no mention if those adjournment requests were granted or rejected. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal observing that the approach of the assessee was causal.

Having observed that the assessee had filed adjournment applications firstly, CIT(A) should have dismissed those applications and opportunity to the assessee, which we find missing in this case. Thus, we are of the considered view that the principles of natural justice were violated and the assessee needs to be given one more chance to plead its case on merits.

Thus, we deem it fit to be a fit case, to restore the matter to the files of CIT(A), who shall decide the matter afresh, after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Based on the above observations, we dispose of the appeal for statistical purposes, set aside the order under challenge, and remand the matter to the files of ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.