WALIA AGNI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1028/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 August 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was to meet the interest of justice, acknowledging potential communication issues in the faceless regime.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were decided ex-parte by the NFAC as there was a communication gap. The assessee claimed this was due to circumstances beyond their control.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte decision by the NFAC was justified given the claimed communication gap. The need for a fresh adjudication to ensure justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 27.08.2024Pronounced: 30.08.2024

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s twin appeals, & 1028/PUN/2024, for assessment year 2013-14, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1063966453(1), dated 08.04.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); respectively. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

1. & 1029/PUN/2024 2. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)/NFAC detailed discussion; identical in 4.1, has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee whilst confirming the Assessing Officer’s quantum as well as penalty findings in issue.

3.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that there was a communication gap at various levels i.e. the assessee’s office, it’s auditor and arguing counsel and, therefore, it was prevented on account of circumstances beyond its control so as to cooperate in both the lower authorities and more particularly in the lower appellate adjudication, as the case may be.

4.

The Revenue has placed strong reliance on both the impugned quantum as well as penalty orders.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration before going into vehement rival stands and are of the considered view that largest interest of justice would be met if the assessee’s twin appeals restore back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh adjudication as communication gap in this new faceless regime could not be altogether ruled out. We make it clear that our instant remand directions are subject to a rider that the assessee shall file and prove all the relevant details within three effective opportunities of hearing; at its own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →