Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER BENCH : These Revenue’s four appeals I.T.A.Nos.141, 142, 143 & 147/COCH./2024, for assessment years 2016-2017, 2017-18, 2016-17 & 2016-17 arise against the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din and Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057492001(1); 1057492469(1); 1057492001(1) and 1057492749(1), all dated 30.10.2023, in
2 ITA.Nos.141, 142, 143 & 147/COCH./2024 proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned CIT(A) has quashed the impugned assessment(s)/re- assessment(s) on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not followed the ratio of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 188 Taxman 113 (SC) i.e., for non-issuance of notice u/sec.143(2). There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee had not filed her return in furtherance to sec.148 notice(s); which in turn; could be put to scrutiny u/sec.143(2) of the Act. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) quashing the impugned assessment(s)/re-assessment(s) herein are not sustainable. Faced with this situation, we restore the Revenue’s instant identical four appeals back to the learned CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, 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. Ordered accordingly.
3 ITA.Nos.141, 142, 143 & 147/COCH./2024 3. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us at this stage. We thus make it clear before parting that it shall be indeed open for the assessee to raise all other legal/factual contentions before the learned CIT(A) in consequential proceedings which shall be considered as per law.
Delay of 60 days in filing the instant appeals is condoned as per Revenue’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.
These Revenue’s four appeals ITA.Nos.141, 142, 143 & 147/COCH./2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2024.