M/S ABILITY TRADING COMPANY,KASARAGOD vs. ITO WARD-1&TPS, KASARAGOD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 873/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was rejected ex-parte by the NFAC due to continuous non-appearance. The NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC's ex-parte order was justified without deciding the substantive grounds on merits and whether the assessee was denied a proper hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Hearing: 16.08.2024Pronounced: 05.112024

Appellant by : Sri.Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.112024 Date of Hearing : 16.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in 2017-2018 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057305884(1) dated 24.10.2023 in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting the assessee’s contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge. Learned . M/s.Ability Trading Company. Sr.DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the NFAC’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →