GANRAJ TOWNSHIP LLP,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC ,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 21/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 March 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority failed to comply with the requirements of section 250(6) by not framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication. Considering potential issues with notice service in the new faceless system, the appeals were restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were processed under section 143(1). The lower appellate authority proceeded ex parte due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte assessment by the lower appellate authority was valid, given the failure to frame points of determination and provide detailed adjudication, and potential issues with notice service in the faceless system.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 13.03.2024Pronounced: 26.03.2024

Date of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

The assessee’s twin appeals & 22/PUN/2024, for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, arise against the Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Kolkata; Din(s) and Order Nos.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1057776264(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2023-24/1057774302(1), both dated 07.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

Ms. Deshpande vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee herein had been rightly proceeded ex parte in the lower appellate proceedings on account of its failure to respond to the NFAC’s notices served

2 ITA.Nos.21 & 22/PUN/2024 Ganraj Township LLP at the given e-mail address(es). She fails to dispute the clinching identical fact in both the impugned appellate orders that the same have nowhere been complied with u/s.250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. Therefore, keeping in mind the clinching fact that the concept of faceless hearing is newly introduced system wherein some unintended doubts regarding service of notices could not be altogether ruled out, it is deemed appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the learned NFAC for afresh adjudication in accordance with law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus only to plead and prove all facts with the relevant evidences in consequential proceedings.

3.

These assessee’s twin 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 26.03.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →