Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 916/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 HB KJ and Advance ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune Hb Kj & Advance 411/2, Vs. Mukund Nagar, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 PAN : AAEFH4417L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Amrin Pathan (through virtual) Department by : S/Shri R P Mane & Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 17-09-2024 Date of pronouncement : 17-09-2024 O R D E R PER BENCH:
The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 22.03.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeals for want of prosecution. relates to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the determination of income at Rs.10,51,03,706/- as against the returned income of Rs.7,38,680/- declared by the assessee.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without affording reasonable opportunity of the being heard to the assessee, has decided both the appeals for want of prosecution. He has also not decided the appeals on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. She accordingly submitted that she has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) / NFAC for fresh adjudication after giving the opportunity to the assessee.
The Ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeals for want of prosecution, fairly conceded that the CIT(A) / NFAC has not decided the appeals on merit and has simply dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is an admitted fact that the CIT(A) / NFAC has dismissed both the appeals for want of prosecution and he has not decided the appeals on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which read as under: “250(1)…. (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”
Further, a perusal of the orders passed by the CIT(A) / NFAC shows that it is not clear as to how many opportunities were granted to the assessee apart from simply writing multiple opportunities. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, before the CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. 17th September, 2024.