Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Swami Seva Prakashan, Vs. National Faceless 304/3 BND Government Rest Assessment Centre, Delhi. House Opp A. B. Shri Swami Samarth Gurupeeth, Ring Road, Trimbakeshwar, Nashik- 422212. PAN : AAKTS2192K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by Shri B. S. Rajpurohit : Date of hearing : 01.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust and filed its return of income declaring Nil income after claiming 10(23)(iiiad) of the IT Act. A survey was conducted in the premises of the trust on 17.09.2018. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the trust is not eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the IT Act and accordingly the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.20,54,000/- as against the income returned by the assessee trust at Rs. Nil.
Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was required to pass order on merits of the case by deciding each ground of appeal separately but the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into the merits of the case is in complete disregard of section 250(6) of the IT Act, which mandates that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
5. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has decided the appeal ex-parte without going into the merits of the case. It is the sole contention of the counsel of the assessee that proper opportunity has not been allowed to the assessee to support the grounds of appeal and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have decided the appeal on merits. We find some force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that even in the absence of assessee Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was required to decide each and every ground raised in the memo of appeal by a speaking order. We therefore set-aside the impugned ex-parte order and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh on merits as per fact and law after providing