ARIHANT JEWELLERS,NIGDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(1), AKURDI INCOME TAX OFFICE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1082/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 February 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the NFAC passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits, failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was filed against an ex-parte order by the NFAC. The lower authorities made an addition of Rs. 17,64,207 under Section 68 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC's ex-parte order was passed without proper adjudication on merits, violating procedural requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,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: 27.02.2024Pronounced: 27.02.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1082/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2016-2017 Arihant Jewellers, The Income Tax Officer, Shop 22, Kohinoor Arcade, Ward – 9(1), Akurdi, Pune. Nigdi – 411 044. vs. Maharashtra. PAN AAZFA8768Q PIN – 411 044. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055025890(1), dated 10.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have made impugned addition of Rs.17,64,207/- u/sec.68 of the Act. Mr.Gaurav Singh vehemently argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings.

2 ITA.No.1082/PUN./2023 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the NFAC has passed it’s ex-parte order confirming the impugned addition without adjudicating the issue(s) on merits thereby not complying with sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to frame points for determination followed by a detailed discussion thereof. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →