VIJAY CHIMAJI SHINDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(5),, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1061/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the NFAC order did not deal with the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against NFAC orders upholding additions of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) were decided ex-parte. The assessee's counsel cited lack of communication as the reason for not filing supporting material.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC order properly adjudicated the merits of the case, and if not, whether the appeals should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 147,Section 144,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: 26.02.2024Pronounced: 26.02.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.1060 & 1061/PUN./2023 [E-APPEALS] Assessment Years 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Shri Vijay Chimaji Shinde, B-12, Suryawanshi Tower, The Income Tax Officer, Bhekrai Nagar, Parmar Ward-4(5), PMT Bldg., Parisar, Phursungi. Shankar Shet Road, Swargate, vs. Maharashtra. Pune – 411 037. PIN – 412 307 Maharashtra. PAN BSSPS8319F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S Shingte For Revenue : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

These assessee’s twin e-appeals I.T.A.Nos.1060 & 1061/ PUN./2024, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din and Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055249450(1) & 1055249522(1), both dated 18.08.2023, for assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017- 2018, respectively, involving proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties through their learned representatives that the NFAC’s order herein under challenge; upholding the Assessing

2 ITA.Nos.1061 & 1062/PUN./2023 Officer’s identical action making sec.2(22)(e) deemed dividend additions, involving varying sums have been passed ex-parte.

3.

Learned counsel submitted that on account of lack of communication between the assessee, his auditor and the authorised representative in the lower appellate proceedings, he could not file all the supporting material which could assist the learned NFAC in better administration of justice. The Revenue could also not dispute that the NFAC's impugned lower appellate order(s) nowhere deal with the merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to frame points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals 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 twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →