Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.702/COCH./2023 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Sankunair Mini Suseelan The Income Tax Officer, Pillai, Uthradam, Nadakkal, Ward-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Near Kalluvathukkal, Kollam vs. Karbala Junction, District. PIN – 691 578 Kerala. KOLLAM – 691 501. PAN AMVPM2680H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.
This assessee’s appeal, for the assessment year 2013- 2014, arise against the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”], Delhi, Delhi’s DIN & Order no.ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2022-23/1043853280(1) dated 14.07.2022, in proceedings u/sec.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act").
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2 ITA.No.702/Coch./2023.
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. Smt. Swarnalatha, 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 this 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 plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
Delay of 358 days is condoned by considering the 3. assessee’s condonation petitions explaining the delay(s) as well as going by the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settling the issue long back that that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.
3 ITA.No.702/Coch./2023. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.08.2024.