MAHAJAN INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. AU INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 396/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 February 2025AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte and lacked substantive adjudication. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was decided ex-parte. The CIT(A) affirmed the Assessing Officer's additions without detailed adjudication. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was delayed but condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal when proceeding ex-parte and whether the adjudication process followed the prescribed procedure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,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 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064939038(1) dated 16.05.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 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 91 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 Mahajan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.

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 Mahajan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. 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 →