S-237, LAKSHMAYUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6),, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1910/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to procedural infirmities and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for negligence.

What were the facts?

The assessee cooperative society did not receive hearing notices from the CIT(A) due to technical glitches, leading to an ex parte order. The assessment order was also framed ex parte under Section 144 by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and AO were valid, and if the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 144

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, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 24.09.2024Pronounced: 04.12.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 24.05.2024.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee. According to the assessee, it didn’t receive any notices of hearing due to glitches in the network/computer. Be that as it may, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal as stipulated under sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act").

Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

In addition to the above infirmity of the impugned order, it was also brought to our notice by the Ld.AR that the Assessment Order has been framed by the AO u/s.144 of the Act (best judgment assessment).

1.

According to the Ld.AR, omission to appear/respond during the course of assessment proceedings was not deliberate, since the official who handled the tax matters was not aware of the proceedings and therefore, the assessee was in the dark about the ongoing assessment proceedings. Be that as it may, it is noted that the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment and the assessee is directed to file written submissions/relevant documents as called for by the AO in the first round itself. Since there is negligence on the part of the assessee, cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed which the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of (AY 2017-18) S-237, Lakshmayur Primary Agricultural- Co-op. Credit Society depositing of the same before the AO and thereafter, the AO to frame the de novo assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 04th day of December, 2024, in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →