VIVEK VAMAN VELANKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO WARD 1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1049/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 September 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-2012 arose from an order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's contentions due to non-appearance in lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without deciding the substantive grounds on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance. The need for a proper adjudication of the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 03.09.2024Pronounced: 04.09.2024

short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1053271761(1), dated 29.05.2023, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting the assessee’s

2 ITA.No.1049/PUN./2024 contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge. Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the CIT(A)-NFAC’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 the situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal 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 file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.09.2024.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →