SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR
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
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
7 ITA No. 312/JP/2024 M/s Singhania University, Jhunjhunu vs ACIT (E), Jaipur then proceeded to have dismissed the appeal, but only after providing final
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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24/07/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
8 ITA No. 312/JP/2024 M/s Singhania University, Jhunjhunu vs ACIT (E), Jaipur 1. The Appellant- M/s Singhania University, Jhunjhunu izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT (Exemption), Jaipur 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 312/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
