Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 13.09.2023 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), N.F.A.C., Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.02.2016, passed by the ITO, 5(2), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment-Year 2008-09, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09
“(1) The order passed on 13.09.2023 by Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC is bad in law and in facts.
Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC passed an order dated 13.09.2023, when no appeal was pending before him and the matter was already decided on 12.01.2023 by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC.
Assessee requests that the order passed on 13.09.2023 by Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC needs to be set-aside and quashed as the same is against the law, legal procedures and jurisprudence.
2. Legal Heir [L/H] filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Bhopal on 13.04.2016 and filed submissions during the course of hearing, during the course of hearing, it was instructed to the L/H to file the same appeal digitally also filed submissions through digital mode, L/H followed the instruction and while filing online appeal attached the copy of Manual Appeal filed in form no. 35 confirming it is the one and same appeal filed by the L/H filed on 13.04.2016. The case was shifted to CIT(A), NFAC, on 12.01.2023, the order was passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC and appeal of the assessee was allowed in full.
Another order against the same assessment order was passed by Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC on 13.09.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC on 13.09.2023 needs to be set aside and quashed as the same is against the law, legal procedures and jurisprudence.”
None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called nor any adjournment application filed. The case was passed over and taken up at the end of board but still nobody appeared on behalf of assessee.
However, the assessee has filed written submission which is held in case file. Ld. DR for Revenue pointed out that the case can be decided on the basis of material held on record. Therefore, the hearing is proceeded and the matter is being disposed of.
Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09
We need to narrate only limited facts that are necessary for understanding and adjudication of case. ‘Shri Dhruv Sachdev’, appellant in present case, is the legal heir of ‘Late Shri Arun Sachdev’. In this case, the AO passed assessment-order after making an addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in mutual funds. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal to CIT(A) and now came up in next appeal before us. From the Grounds of Appeal re-produced above and also Written-Submission filed by assessee, it appears that the CIT(A) has passed two orders while deciding first-appeal of the assessee. The first-order was passed on 12.01.2023 and the second-order is again passed on 13.09.2023. While the first-order was in favour of assessee, the second-order is against assessee. The assessee is impugning the second-order in present appeal. The assessee has filed copies of (i) first Order dated 12.01.2023 to show that the CIT(A) has already allowed assessee’s appeal and deleted addition made by AO and also (ii) a consequential Order dated 13.01.2023 passed by AO giving effect to the said order of CIT(A) and reducing demand to Rs. Nil. For the sake of immediate reference, these orders are being scanned and reproduced here:
Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09 Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09 Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09 Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09 Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09 Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09 Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09
Dhruv Sachdev, Bhopal AY 2008-09 Therefore, the limited prayer by assessee is such that the second-order dated 13.09.2023 passed by CIT(A) is ‘not-est’ when the assessee’s appeal had already been decided vide first-order dated 12.01.2023.
Ld. DR for Revenue agrees to the prayer of assessee but, however, requests that the matter may be remanded back to CIT(A) to verify the facts cited by assessee and take a considered view.
We find merit in the prayer of Ld. DR. Accordingly, we remit this case back to the file of CIT(A) for carrying out necessary verification and then take a decision. Needless to mention that if it is found by CIT(A) that there are two orders passed at his level, the second order dated 13.09.2023 which is impugned in this appeal shall become non-est.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 03.05.2024.