KANDARPKUMAR RATILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 700/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 December 2024AY 2012-13Bench: DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to initiate assessment proceedings de-novo. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 5000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) due to reasons beyond their control. The assessee's counsel requested an opportunity to make compliance. The Revenue also agreed that the matter should be remanded.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by NFAC was justified and whether the reopening of assessment and additions were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR.BRR KUMARSHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.12.2024Pronounced: 13.12.2024

[PAN No.ACCPP5298D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Parin S Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 13.12.2024 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 22.02.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The order passed by the lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.

2. Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal ex-parte.

3. Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act.

4. Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs,41,50,000/- u/s.68 of the Act.

5. Charging of Interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified.

6.

Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is unjustified.

3.

Both the parties fairly submitted that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A) due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that given a chance due compliance would be made before the Revenue Authorities. The assessee is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”.

4.

The Ld.DR fairly submitted that in fitness of the things the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer who is the primary authority to look into the issues. We find strength in the submission of the Ld.DR and accordingly the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to initiate the assessment proceeding de-novo.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 13.12.2024

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →