Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; These two appeals of different assessee filed against DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037975185(1) dt. 21/12/2021 & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056525970(1) dt. 26/09/2023 respectively passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter].
ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4
ITA No. 678/PUN/2024 AY 2009-10 &
At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we find the cause of the delay falls well within four corners of ‘sufficient cause’ hence regardless of length we deem it fit to condoned the same proceed to adjudicate the issues on merits. After placing reliance on ‘Mool Chandra Vs UOI’ [2024, CA 8435- 8436/2024],‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), we condone the same & proceed to adjudicate the issues on merits, as ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless; (a) reasons falls out ‘sufficient cause’ bowls and (b) there is lightest insignia that litigant has deliberately delayed the filing of appeals.
Since facts & substantive issues arisen in these two appeals is common & identical, on the request of rival parties and for the sake of succinctness these appeals are heard together for consolidated & common order.
ITA 678/PUN/2024 4. We note that, against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] for assessment year 2009-10 [‘AY’ hereinafter], the assessee instituted an appeal before the Ld. NFAC on 13/04/2016. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant vide twin notices dt. 28/01/2021 & 12/10/2021, was ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 AY 2009-10 & called upon to make submission in support of grounds raised by him. In the event of no-response/reply the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. NFAC for non-prosecution. We further note that, while disposing of the said appeal, the Ld. NFAC did fail to adjudicate the issue on merits in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and also failed to pass a speaking order in the manner required by s/s (6) of section u/s 250 of the Act.
ITA 730/PUN/2024 5. We observed that, against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [‘NeAC’ hereinafter] for assessment year 2016-17 [‘AY’ hereinafter] the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 20/08/2022. After instituting the appeal the appellant however could make no submission in support of grounds of appeal s raised in Form No 35. In the event of the Ld. NFAC was constrained to disposed-off the appeal ex-parte reiterating the findings of the Ld. AO. We further note that, while disposing of the appeal, the Ld. NFAC did fail to adjudicate the issue on merits in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and also failed to pass a speaking order in the manner prescribed by s/s (6) of section u/s 250 of the Act.
Heard rival common submission and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ITAT, Rules’] perused the material placed on records. Having regards to explanation & ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 AY 2009-10 & narration echoed during the course of hearing, we are satisfied that these assessee’s for the sufficient reasons were prevented from prosecuting the appeals on merits after they were instituted before the Ld. NFAC. We also observed that, in both these cases the impugned orders were passed ex-parte sidestepping from the mandate of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. In view of this factual findings, in our considered opinion these appellants deserves one more opportunity to represent their respective cases & be heard on merits and this can only be achieved if we set-aside these impugned orders for their de- novo adjudication on remand. We therefore set-aside these impugned orders and remand the same to the files of Ld. NFAC who shall adjudicate them separately in accordance with law after according three effective hearings and pass separate speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. The grounds of appeal thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In result these two appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Wednesday, 07th August, 2024.
-S/d- -S/d- VINAY BHAMORE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 07th August, 2024. आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT Concerned. 4. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4