NUGEN ENGINEERING,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. I, , DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1446/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 April 2024AY 2014-15Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ), Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member)4 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 held that mere uploading of an order on the portal is not sufficient service. It also noted that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the procedure under Section 250(6) by not deciding the appeal on merit after perusing the assessment records.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay in filing. The assessee claimed the order was not properly served and was only uploaded on the portal, which they did not notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution without proper service and without deciding on merit is valid. Whether uploading an order on the portal constitutes proper service.

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, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

1.

(A.Y. 2014-2015) Nugen Engineering National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16th November, 2022 passed for assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred by 347 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the reasons assigned by the assessee for explaining the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has submitted that its appeal has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) for want of prosecution without deciding it on merit. It has been further pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not served upon the assessee either physically or through electronical mode. It was just uploaded on the portal of the Income Tax Act, which was not noticed by the assessee.

3.

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that mere uploading of the order on the portal is not sufficient for construing the service of the order upon the assessee. It should have been sent to the assessee as per the Rules, namely physical or through e-mail.

4.

A perusal of the impugned order would suggest that ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which is contrary to the procedure contemplated in sub-section (6) of section 250. This section mandates the ld. CIT(Appeals) to determine the points in dispute and record reasons in support of the conclusion on those points. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was required to call for the assessment record and peruse it. Thereafter a (A.Y. 2014-2015) Nugen Engineering decision has to be made. The assessment order has been passed under section 143(3). The ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to look into the facts and circumstances discussed by the ld. Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order. Considering this aspect, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal and restore all these issues to the file of ld. 1st Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.

5.

In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →