KOHINOOR EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 349/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 August 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in agreement with both parties and in the interest of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-prosecution. The assessee claimed that their former counsel failed to inform them about the hearing dates, leading to their inability to represent their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order complied with Section 250(6) and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard due to non-communication of hearing dates by their counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 147,Section 143(3)

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 S.S. Deshpande, AR
For Respondent: Shri K.Bala Murli Krishna, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.08.2024Pronounced: 29.08.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 04.12.2018 passed by learned ITO- 2(3), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3)/254 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. We observe that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6).

Further, Ld. AR for assessee drew us to an affidavit of assessee-company’s director Shri Ashok Singh filed at Page 1-2 of Paper-Book wherein, vide Para 3, it is averred that the e-mail address given in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A) was mpa.returns@gmail.com which belonged to assessee’s earlier counsel Shri Manoj Pahwa, Chartered Accountant but the counsel did not inform fixation of hearings of first-appeal to assessee, therefore the assessee could not represent its case before CIT(A). Ld. AR submits that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication in terms of section 250(6). 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 consensus by both sides 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 his 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

Page 2 of 3 of hearing to the assessee. 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.

4.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 29.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →