Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by an ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The reason for non-response to notices was attributed to directors being out of station and technical glitches, leading to unawareness of notices.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not aware of the notices due to technical issues and being out of station. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity for a hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was justified given the reasons for the assessee's non-response to notices.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 30.05.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2017-18 passed an ex parte order qua assessee since the assessee didn’t respond to ‘9’ notices issued by him in the course of the appellate proceedings.
None appeared for the assessee. Having gone through the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, it is noted that the assessee is aggrieved by the ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A).
1. 3. Having gone through the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find from the statement of facts filed along with the appeal that the reason for not responding to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) was that the Directors of the assessee-company were out of station and the employees who handled the tax matters were in the dark about the notices issued by Tax Authorities, due to technical glitches in the computer, except one notice dated 21.07.2023 when they requested for adjournment which fact that the Ld.CIT(A) himself acknowledges at Page No.3 of the impugned order.
According to the assessee, thereafter, also the assessee was in unaware about the notices due to the same problem in the network, etc., as stated supra. In such a scenario, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of hearing by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal before him and the assessee is directed to file the relevant documents to substantiate its grounds of appeal and the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in (AY 2017-18) M/s.Glenco Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if necessary the Ld.CIT(A) may call for remand report and pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 04th day of December, 2024, in Chennai.