LAXMAN YADAV ,KHARGONE MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, CHANAKYAPURI DHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 515/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 December 2024AY 1999-20007 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy where the assessee claimed the appeal was for AY 1999-2000, and the Form 35 filed physically was also for AY 1999-2000. However, the CIT(A) passed the impugned order for AY 1998-99, and the appeal fee challan was also for AY 1998-99. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Considering the apparent mistake at the CIT(A)'s level in disposing of the first appeal under the faceless mechanism and the discrepancy in the assessment years, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order as deemed fit. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Laxman Yadav, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 22.03.2002 passed by the Income-tax Officer (AO), Dhar, under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal as non-maintainable due to non-response to multiple notices issued electronically. The assessee contended that the original appeal was filed physically for Assessment Year (AY) 1999-2000, providing a copy of Form 35. However, the CIT(A)'s order was for AY 1998-99, and the appeal fee challan also pertained to AY 1998-99, indicating a discrepancy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal as non-maintainable under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without adjudicating the merits of the case? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the original appeal was filed physically for AY 1999-2000, and a copy of the acknowledged Form 35 was submitted. The dismissal by the CIT(A) was based on non-response to notices, but the CIT(A) incorrectly dealt with AY 1998-99 instead of AY 1999-2000, and the appeal fee was also paid for the wrong AY. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not appear to have made specific arguments before the ITAT. The CIT(A)'s order was based on the assessee's failure to respond to notices and furnish required documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250,Section 147,Section 246

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Ramanlal Jain, Sr. Adv and Shri Arnik Jain
For Respondent: Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. DR |
Hearing: 02.12.2024Pronounced: 27.1.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 15.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 22.03.2002 passed by learned ITO, Dhar [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

Heard the learned Representative of both sides and case records perused.

Laxman Yadav, Khargone - AY 1999-2000 3. The impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is scanned and re-produced below:

Page 2 of 7 Laxman Yadav, Khargone - AY 1999-2000 Page 3 of 7

Laxman Yadav, Khargone - AY 1999-2000 4. On perusal, we find that that the said order has been passed by CIT(A) under faceless mechanism. Further, the CIT(A) has noted that the notices were given to assessee to furnish Form 35, Statement of Facts alongwith the assessment-order against which appeal was filed and submissions in support thereof, but no response was given by assessee. The CIT(A) has also noted the details of as many as 6 notices given to assessee which remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order dismissing assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable.

5.

Before us, Ld. AR for assessee submits that the appeal for AY 1999-00 was filed in physical mode to CIT(A)-1, Indore, a copy of Form No. 35 duly acknowledged by office of CIT(A)-1, Indore with seal dated “5 AUG 2002” is filed, the first page of same is scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference:

Page 4 of 7 Laxman Yadav, Khargone - AY 1999-2000 Page 5 of 7

Laxman Yadav, Khargone - AY 1999-2000 6. On perusal and careful consideration, we find that the CIT(A) has passed impugned order for AY 1998-99 and not for AY 1999-00 whereas the assessee claims the present appeal as for AY 1999-00. At the same time, it is also noteworthy that the assessee has paid challan of appeal fee for AY 1998-99 and not for AY 1999-00; the challan copy filed by assessee is being scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:

Laxman Yadav, Khargone - AY 1999-2000 7. Thus, the Form No. 35 of first-appeal filed under physical mode is for AY 1999-00 and accordingly the assessee claims this appeal as pertaining to AY 1999-00 but the CIT(A) has passed impugned order for AY 1998-99 and the assessee has also paid appeal fee for AY 1998-99. There appears some mistake at the level of CIT(A) in disposing first-appeal under faceless mechanism. It is also noteworthy that the CIT(A) called Form 35, etc. from assessee but finding no response from assessee, ultimately passed ex-parte order dismissing first-appeal of assessee. Therefore, in this situation, we think it appropriate to restore this matter at the level of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after giving necessary hearings to assessee. The assessee is also directed to make compliances on the dates of hearing before CIT(A) failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass order as deemed fit in accordance with law.

8.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 27/12/2024

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →