PRITESH DINESH ADANI,ICHALKARANJI vs. PROPRIETOR, ICHALKARANJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1691/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 September 2024AY 2006-07Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay of 64 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)-NFAC. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A)-NFAC were rejected ex-parte due to non-appearance. The CIT(A) also did not condone a delay of 64 days in filing the appeals. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the substantive grounds on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeals ex-parte without condoning the delay and without deciding the substantive grounds on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 25.09.2024Pronounced: 26.09.2024

Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050564148(1) and 1050564549(1), both dated 09.03.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.250 and 143(3) r.w.s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); assessment year-wise; respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous

2 ITA.No.1691 & 1692/PUN./2024 non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting the assessee’s contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge. Further the CIT(A)-NFAC has also not given any specific averment for not condoning the delay of 64 days each in these twin appeals filed before it. Shri Rajpurohit could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the CIT(A)’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the instant appeals before the learned CIT-(A)-NFAC in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice and restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.1691 and 1692/PUN./2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

3 ITA.No.1691 & 1692/PUN./2024 Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.09.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →