Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM &
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 311/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20. cuke B.G. Professional Education Society, The Exemption Ward-1, Vs. 228, City Center, S.C. Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAATB 7213 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri SL Jain, Advocate. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/09/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/10/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-
1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. NFAC (A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte, without providing sufficient opportunity to appellant, here the ld. NFAC (A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the appeal for non-attendance.
2. The ld. NFAC (A) as well as ADIT CPC have grossly erred in passing rectification order u/s 154 of the IT Act, without giving the effect of amount as applied for charitable purposes by the assessee.
3. The learned NFAC (A) is grossly erred in confirming the order of ld. ADIT CPC whereas he rejected the claim of Rs. 2,20,066/- in relation of Application of Income under section 11(1)(a) OF Income Tax Act, arbitrarily on erroneous facts and superfluous reasons without bringing out the relevant material facts.
4. The ld. NFAC as well as ADIT CPC have grossly erred in following the provision of section 11 of the IT Act, 1961.
The ld. NFAC as well as ADIT CPC have grossly erred in imposing interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C.
The appellant craved the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee society was sent Intimation under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20 vide Intimation dated 11.05.2020 raising a demand of Rs. 47,754/-.
Thereafter, on the basis of rectification application filed by the assessee, the ADIT, CPC passed rectification order dated 11.09.2020 under section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 repeating the same order as passed under section 143(1) of the IT Act without giving the effect of amount as applied for charitable purposes by the assessee. Being aggrieved by the rectification order under section 154 of the IT Act, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A)
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi. The ld. CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 28.03.2023 by observing that it may be presumed that assessee may not be interested in taking the issue seriously before the appellate authority or he may not be able to substantiate the grounds taken in the appeal.
Now the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the revenue authorities. At the outset we find that the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing in paras 3 to 4 of his order as under :-
“ 3. As per record, the appeal was fixed for hearing by issue of notice u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 07.12.2022 which was sent through E-mail. In response there was no compliance on behalf of the appellant. Further, case was re-fixed for hearing by notice issued dated 20.01.2023 and 24.03.2023. In response again there was no compliance on behalf of the appellant on the said date. However, on the above given dates again neither reply nor any adjournment application was filed by the appellant. 3.1. From the above, it is apparent that the appellant has deliberately not complied with the notices issued by this office and kept on asking for time without any valid reason. Hence, it is apparent that appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (118 ITR 461) that “preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it”. It means, if the appellant is not pursuing the appeal without any reasonable cause, it may be presumed that he may not interest in taking the issue seriously before the appellate authority or he may not lbe able to substantiate the grounds taken in the appeals. 3.2. The appeal of the appellant is against assessment order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Though the appellant had appealed against the additions made by the Assessing Officer he did not comply with the notices of hearings of the appeals from the undersigned. Under the circumstances I am compelled to believe that the appellant has nothing to submit against the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The same therefore is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
From the above observation, we find that inspite of sufficient opportunities of being heard given to the assessee, the assessee has not complied with the notices. The ld. CIT (A) in absence of compliance of the notices issued under section 250 of the IT Act, written submissions etc., dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
4. Since the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) was passed ex parte for non compliance of the notices issued and not furnishing the documentary evidences, by upholding the assessment order under section 143(1)/rectification order under section 154 of the IT Act, whereby the AO made addition of Rs. 47,750/-, therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that it will be reasonable to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. We, thus, set aside the ex-parte order of the ld. CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is granted one
5 BG Professional Education Society, Jaipur. more opportunity to represent his case before the A.O. and directed to file necessary documents/evidences as required by the AO. In case the assessee fails to appear before the AO, the AO may decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record. 5. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2023.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ ½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/10/2023. Das/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- BG Professional Education Society, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Exemption Ward -1, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 311/JP/2023}