RAM KUMARI NIGAM,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO, CHHATARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 388/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 February 2025AY 2009-10Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member)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 noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's discussion proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, affirming the Assessing Officer's actions without a substantive lower appellate adjudication. Considering potential communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The case was called twice, and none appeared on behalf of the assessee, leading to ex-parte proceedings. A delay of 17 days in filing the appeal was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte order was justified, and if restoring the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication is appropriate considering procedural irregularities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Hearing: 07.02.2025Pronounced: 07.02.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064247525(1) dated 22.04.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Delay of 17 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

./2024 Ram Kumari Nigam 4. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. Nor do we find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A)/NFAC to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

5.

Mr. Srivastava vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, his instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and the arguing counsel involving the newly introduced system of faceless hearings, could not be altogether ruled out.

7.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate ./2024 Ram Kumari Nigam adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

8.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/02/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →