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, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
आदेश / ORDER Per G. D. Padmahshali, AM; This appeal is filed u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’] by the assessee challenging the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC/CIT(A)’] DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059816453(1) dt. 17/01/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 04/12/2028 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
Briefly stated facts anent to the case are that; 2.1 The appellant assessee is a Co-op. Bank and had filed its return declaring ₹7,36,70,250/- income. The case of the assessee was selected for ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4
The Jalgaon People Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs DCIT 143(2) of the Act. In the event of assessee’s failure to substantiate its eligibility & entitlement for deduction of various expenses the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings with total addition of ₹79,96,310/- owning to disallowance of (a) loss on sale of non-banking assets (b) bad debts (c) provision for BDDR & (d) employee welfare etc. and assessed the total income at ₹8,95,13,890/- u/s 143(3) as against returned income.
2.2 When aforestated additions are assailed in an appeal before first appellate authority, the Ld. NFAC accorded as many as four clear opportunities of hearing vide notices dt. 18/01/2021, 11/12/2023, 22/12/2023 & 01/01/2024 which however remained un-responded. In absence of any representation or written submission from the assessee, the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution by relying on the catena of decision of including ‘CIT Vs B.N. Bhattacharya’ [1997, 118 ITR 461 (SC)].
2.3 Aggrieved assessee society brought up this appeal challenging the action of Ld. NFAC on violation of principle of natural justice and denial of deduction on merits.
The case was called twice, none appeared on bequest of the appellant assessee nor there any application for adjournment filed. In view thereof we deem it appropriate to proceed and adjudicate the matter on merits u/s 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963.
ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4
The Jalgaon People Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs DCIT
We have heard Ld. DR, perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963. The record prima-facie reveals us that, the assessee could neither attend nor could appoint proper consultant to represent its case before the Ld. NFAC. When assessee failed to represent its case in appeal on merits with cogent evidences and submission etc., the Ld. NFAC was constrained to dismiss the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
We are heedful to the restriction placed by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act which obligates the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue either by confirming or annulling the addition or reducing or enhancing the addition made by the assessing officer without the right to remand the matter back. However, while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is mandated to state point of determination, its decision thereon and clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. This exercise by the Ld. CIT(A) is a pre-requisite and invariably necessary for each assessment year in each case irrespective of its repetition. This is because in taxation each assessment year per-se is a separate unit as is governed by its own peculiar facts & features and as such the principle of res-judicata is inapplicable in fiscal laws. Therefore, any adjudication in taxation reaches finality utterly for the year of adjudication only and in no case it does govern any later or subsequent year. This find fortified in ‘Radhesham Satsang Vs CIT’ [1992, 193 ITR 321 (SC)], ‘AkzoNobel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl CIT’ [2022, in ITA 370/2022, (Del)].
ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4
The Jalgaon People Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs DCIT
It is a trite law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad’ reported in 8 SCC 266 (SC), that ‘if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner’. Therefore, in our considered view, in the absence of clear authorisation in the statue permitting the Ld. NFAC to culminate proceedings without touching merits even in ex- parte proceedings is violative of provision of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act.
In view hereof, we hold that, the impugned adjudication by the Ld. NFAC sidestepping the dictate is not in consonance with the provision of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. For the reason, without commenting on merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. NFAC with a direction to deal therewith de-nova after according not more than two opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act.
The appeal in result is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Monday, 03rd day of June, 2024
-S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; ददनाांक / Dated : 03rd day of June, 2024 आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi (India) 4. The Concerned CIT (MH-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘A’, Pune 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4