Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. GODARA, JM :
The instant batch of eight appeals pertains to a single assessee having Gourishankar Education Society. All other relevant details stand duly tabulated hereunder :
Sr. ITA No. A.Y. Order appealed against Proceedings No. u/s. 1 1405/PUN/2023 2013-14 NFAC, DIN & Order No. 147 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- r.w.s.144 24/1057283993(1), Dt. 23.10.2023 2 1406/PUN/2023 2013-14 NFAC, DIN & Order No. 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057284096(1), Dt. 23.10.2023 3 1407/PUN/2023 2014-15 NFAC, DIN & Order No. 147 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- r.w.s.144 24/1057534039(1), Dt. 31.10.2023 4 1408/PUN/2023 2014-15 NFAC, DIN & Order No. 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057534873(1), Dt. 31.10.2023
5 1409/PUN/2023 2015-16 NFAC, DIN & Order No. 147 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- r.w.s.144 24/1057284579(1), Dt. 23.10.2023 6 1410/PUN/2023 2015-16 NFAC, DIN & Order No. 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057284834(1), Dt. 23.10.2023 7 1411/PUN/2023 2016-17 NFAC, DIN & Order No. 147 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- r.w.s.144 24/1057285364(1), Dt. 23.10.2023 8 1412/PUN/2023 2016-17 NFAC, DIN & Order No. 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057285519(1), Dt. 23.10.2023
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
The assessee submits at the outset that the learned CIT(A)’s four orders under challenge herein in 1407, 1409 & 1411/PUN/2023 had refused to condone the corresponding delay(s) on the one hand and at the same time, they have upheld the assessing authority’s action making corresponding quantum addition(s) involving varying sums. Mr. Phadke further states very fairly that the assessment(s) in question herein have also been framed ex-parte on account of the disputes arising in the managing committee of the assessee trust during the relevant period which culminated in various communications gaps amongst its office, auditors and the arguing counsel’s level. He lastly undertakes to plead and prove all the relevant facts if granted one more effective innings before the learned lower authorities.
Mr. Murkunde on the other hand vehemently supported the learned lower authority’s action inter alia proceedings ex-parte against the assessee on account of its non-appearance all along.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the forgoing rival stand and are of the considered view with larger interest of justice would be met in case the learned CIT(A)/NFAC reexamines the assessee’s case(s) on merits keeping in mind the fact that foregoing reasons of the communication gaps at various levels could not be altogether ruled out in such an instance. Mr. Murkunde sought to highlight the fact that the CIT(A)/NFAC has further refused to condone the delay(s) as well as once the assessee had instituted its lower appeal(s) on 18.03.2023 against the assessment(s) order dated 16.03.2022. He fails to rebut the fact that the Assessing Officer had framed ex-parte assessment(s) herein which could not be taken to the logical conclusion on account of the management issues in assessee’s governing body. Be that as it may, hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such procedural aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly restore the assessee’s instant four quantum appeals in 1407, 1409 & 1411/PUN/2023 back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its appropriate adjudication as per law u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring it to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. It is made clear that it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
The assessee’s penalty appeals in 1408, 1410 & 1412/PUN/2023 follow the suit being consequential in nature. They are also allowed for statistical purposes in very terms.
No other ground or arguments has been pressed before us at either parties at this stage.
These assessee’s eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2024.