MOHAMMED NASRUDEEN,PUDHUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 3, CUDDALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 646/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 July 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte without considering the merits of the case. The assessee claimed non-receipt of hearing notice due to technical glitches.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merits, and if the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 22.05.2024Pronounced: 05.07.2024

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 10.01.2024, for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2012-13.

2.

The main grievance of the assessee is against action of the Ld.CIT(A) who has passed an ex parte order without going into the merits of the case. Since we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the (AY 2012-13 ) Mohammed Nasrudeen :: 2 ::

1.

assessee, it is in violation of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act. According to the assessee, he has not received notice of hearing due to some glitches in the internet/digital/computer. Therefore, he prays for one more opportunity.

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give assessee one more innings to the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of records, we note that impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee.

We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal on merits as required u/s.250(6) of the Act. In such circumstances, for the ends of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue as per sub-section (6) of sec.250 of the Act.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →