Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
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).
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.
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.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 27/12/2024