VOITH TURBO PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 777/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 October 2024AY 2022-2023Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the condonation petition sympathetically and then decide the appeal on merits, providing the assessee with a last opportunity to produce evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed due to the absence of a condonation petition for a delay in filing the appeal. The assessee did not get a hearing on merits before the Ld. CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits due to a delay in filing the appeal and the absence of a condonation petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Hearing: 09.10.2024Pronounced: 14.10.2024

O R D E R PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Voith Turbo Private Ltd, Hyderabad (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 04.07.2024 for the A.Y. 2022-23.

2.

At the outset, it is seen that an adjournment petition have been filed by the assessee. However, we found from the records that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing of the appeal due to absence of condonation petition. Therefore, the case of the assessee could not be heard on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence without considering the adjournment petition filed by the assessee, the present matter is being heard in absence of the assessee.

3.

Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to file condonation petition in support of delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, he requested to upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the Ld. DR and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made. It could be seen from the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee failed to file condonation petition in support of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), as a result the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore the assessee failed to substantiate their case by providing necessary documentary evidence, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. Hence the case of the assessee has not been heard on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the case must be decided on merits. Therefore, we direct the assessee to file the condonation petition before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay in filing the appeal. On filling of such condonation petition the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide on the condonation petition sympathetically and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. We also provide one last opportunity to the assessee to produce all the necessary documentary evidence in support of their contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) and get the matter disposed of on merits. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →