PIYUSH PRAVINCHANDRA JOSHI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 736/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices which were not complied with by the assessee. However, to ensure no prejudice to the revenue, the matter was sent back for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee also challenged an addition of Rs. 13,79,640/- made under Section 69C.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the addition under Section 69C was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Mehl Ranpura, CA
Hearing: 09/10/2024Pronounced: 09/10/2024

Asstt.Year : 2017-18 Piyush Pravinchandra Joshi ITO, Ward-1(1) Plot No.68/C, Bholanath Society Vs Bhavnagar. Subhasnagar Bhavnagar 364 001 Gujarat. PAN : ABUPJ 1651 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee by Shri Mehl Ranpura, CA Revenue by : Shri Ravindra, SR.DR सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.02.2024 for the Asst.Year 2017-18 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short).

2.

In the grounds of appeal, the assessee besides challenging ex parte order passed by the ld.CIT(A), without providing adequate opportunity of hearing during the appellate proceedings, he has also challenged addition of Rs.13,79,640/- made under section 69C of the Act.

3. On going through the records, it is found that the Id.CIT(A) has issued notices on 25.1.2021, 4.11.2022, 7.7.2023, 10.1.2024 arid 29.01.2024, which were not complied with by the assessee. At the 2 same time, it is also found that the Id.CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee owing to non-prosecution. Since the assessee has taken a pleading that the appellate order was being passed ex. parte without affording opportunity to the assessee to defend his case, it is felt that no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue, if the matter is sent back to the file of the Id.CIT(A) for re- adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee in accordance with law. I hold so.

4.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Dictated on the Open Court, typed and pronounced on 9th October, 2024.

Copy of this order be given to the assessee. The Registry is directed to dispatch as per procedure.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →