RAJESH BUILDHOMES PVT. LTD. ,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 355/IND/2024Status: HeardITAT Indore09 October 2024AY 2014-2015Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded for proper adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought adjournments from the CIT(A) to compile necessary documents, but the request was rejected, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee argued that the request for adjournment was genuine and prayed for a remand.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the assessee's request for adjournment and passing an ex-parte order. The primary issue is providing an opportunity for a proper hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.09.2024Pronounced: 09.10.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 24.09.2021 passed by learned NFAC, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Rajesh Buildhomes Pvt. Limited, Indore. - AY 2014-15

2.

Ld. AR for assessee drew us to Para 5 to 7 of impugned order to show that the assessee sought adjournments from CIT(A) as the compilation of desired details and documents was underway and needed some more time for preparation and proper presentation. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected assessee’s request for adjournment and passed impugned order ex-parte qua assessee on the basis of AO’s order and Form No. 35. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee made genuine request for adjournment and the CIT(A) ought to have accepted assessee’s request. Ld. AR further submits that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication of the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first-appeal. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent its case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

3.

In view of above and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent its case before CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Rajesh Buildhomes Pvt. Limited, Indore. - AY 2014-15

4.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →