SHAHEEN BEGUM ISHAQ MOHAMMED,AURANGABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1960/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 December 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income, and the case was reopened due to a property sale. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A)/NFAC also dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of hearing by the lower appellate authority. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 07.11.2024Pronounced: 02.12.2024

Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shaheen Begum Ishaq Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Mohammed, Aurangabad. H.No.1-23-44 Beside Mina Function Hall, Dedi Bazar, Aurangabad- 431001. PAN : EIMPM3589L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 07.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 02.12.2024 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and return of income was not filed by her. The case was reopened u/s 148 on the basis of reason that the assessee along with four Rs.16,19,80,000/- and market value of such land for stamp duty purpose is Rs.23,63,58,000/-. Therefore, considering the fact that the assessee has earned capital gain, proceedings u/s 147 were initiated. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) was issued but the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 determining the total income at Rs.2,59,73,407/-.

3.

Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared nor any request for adjournment was filed by the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing Ld. DR and on the basis of material available on record.

5.

Ld. DR appearing from the side of Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.

6. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has provided 3 opportunities to the assessee but on none of the dates appellant- assessee responded. We also find that first date of hearing was fixed on 09.07.2024, second date of hearing was fixed on 17.07.2024 and third & last date of hearing was fixed on 25.07.2024. From the perusal of these dates, it is apparently clear that in a short span of 16 days period, 3 notices were issued back to back by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Under the above facts & circumstances we are satisfied that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee to support the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, we deem it proper to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh on merits and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produced supporting documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal, otherwise, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →