MR. AHOK KUMAR AJAY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE WARD-9(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 747/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 June 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not pass the order in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte as the assessee did not respond to notices. The assessee claimed they did not receive the notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed the proper procedure under Section 250(6) when passing an ex parte order, and whether the assessee was properly served with notices.

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, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 22.05.2024Pronounced: 25.06.2024

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 23.01.2024 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) having passed the impugned order ex parte qua assessee.

1.

Having perused the impugned order, we note that several notices were (AY 2012-13) Ahok Kumar Ajay :: 2 :: issued by the Ld.CIT(A). And since, assessee did not respond, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without going into the merits of the case. It was pointed out by the Ld.AR of the assessee that the assessee was not in receipt of the notices as alleged to have been sent to the assessee. Taking into consideration of the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has not passed an order in accordance with sub-section (6) of sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”), we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee for the ends of justice and fair play. Therefore, we set-aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to law. The Ld.AR has undertaken to be diligent and appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and file written submissions/relevant documents to substantiate its grounds of appeal.

The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance with sec.250(6) of the Act after hearing the assessee.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 25th day of June, 2024, in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →