GARDEN CITY,AMRAWATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, AMRAWATI, AMRAVATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 53/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice and following principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to delay without a supporting affidavit. The assessee was also non-responsive before the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex-parte assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the case without adjudicating on merits, and the procedural correctness of dismissing an appeal ex-parte due to delay without proper consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Ms. Alfia Rozie
For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Date of Hearing – 25/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 29/12/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deciding the case without adjudicating the case on merits. 2. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing of this case.” 3. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex–parte on the ground that there is a delay. Even

2 Garden City before the Assessing Officer also, the assessee was non–responsive and as such the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer was ex–parte.

4.

Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that despite of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not furnish Affidavit in support of condonation of delay. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non–explaining the delay in filing the appeal. Be that as it may, to meet the ends of justice and following the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves one opportunity to substantiate its case before the authority below. We also find that w.e.f. 01/10/2024, the statute provides following amendment in respect of power of the learned CIT(A) under section 251 of the Act and the same is reproduced herein below:–

“251(1) ….. (a) ….. Provided that where such appeal is against an order of assessment made under section 144, he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment.”

6.

Consequent upon the aforesaid amendment, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside and remit the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not 3 Garden City seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/11/2024

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →