RAJESH DASHRATH SAWALE,KHARGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 28/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 March 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the NFAC order, though passed ex parte, did not follow the mandatory procedure of framing points of determination and discussing them. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was decided ex parte by the NFAC, which confirmed an unexplained investment addition. The assessee contended that the NFAC order lacked proper adjudication as per Section 250(6) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC order passed ex parte was valid without adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69,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. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058104306(1), dated 21.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that learned NFAC has passed the lower appellate order ex parte whilst confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.34,50,000/-.

2 ITA.No.28/PUN/2024 Rajesh Dashrath Sawale

3.

The Revenue vehemently argued that the asssessee had been afforded adequate opportunities of hearing in the lower appellate proceedings.

Ms. Deshpande fails to dispute the clinching fact that even if it is held that the assessee has deliberately not appeared before the NFAC, there is no lower appellate adjudication in tune with section 250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon. Faced with this situation, I restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to NFAC for his fresh appropriate 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 evidence(s) in consequential proceedings.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.03.2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →