SORANAMMAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD 1,, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2598/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 December 2024AY 2016-171 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 held that in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case. The appeal is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as they failed to furnish submissions or evidence in response to four hearing notices. The assessee claimed the notices were never received, possibly due to being in a spam folder.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was rightly dismissed for non-prosecution, and if an opportunity for re-hearing should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 17.12.2024Pronounced: 18.12.2024

आदेश /O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 27.09.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.

2. At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for non-prosecuting the case. In response to four hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has not furnished its submissions or any documentary evidences. Consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in-limine for non-prosecuting the case.

3.

The ld.AR submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee as the same may be settled in the spam folder of the assessee’s e-mail id. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case.

4.

The ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices and since there was no response from the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the ld.AR that the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee, as the same may be settled in the spam folder of the assessee’s e-mail. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly the issues raised in this appeal is restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →