Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRIB.M. BIYANI
आदेश/O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-orders for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2013-14, both dated 15.07.2022 and both passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arise from assessment-orders dated 31.03.2014 and 28.03.2016 passed by ACIT-3(1), Bhopal and ITO, 2(1), Bhopal respectively, the assessee has filed these two appeals.
Both of these appeals are of the same assessee; the representatives are same and the factual backdrop, reasoning and analysis is also identical; Page 1 of 4
C.I. Builders P.Ltd.,Bhopal & 334/Ind/2022 A.Ys.:2011-12 & 2013-14 therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
In both of these appeals, the assessee has raised original grounds of appeal in Form No.36. Subsequently, the assessee has also filed additional ground which reads as under:-
“That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in passing of an ex-parte order without allowing any more time. That the Appellant Company has changed its Counsel and that mail was not attended by the previous Counsel. Further, the date of first hearing was fixed for 05.02.2021 and again 02.06.2022 (correct date should be 03.06.2022) after a gap of 1 year and 4 months and no further opportunity has been provided.” 4. Ld. AR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and National Newsprints Vs. CIT 223 ITR 688 (MP) and submitted that the additional ground is purely legal in nature, goes to the root of matter and can be adjudicated on the basis of facts already available on record; hence the same deserves to be admitted. Ld. DR could not show any objection. We, therefore, admitted the same and thereupon both sides made submissions.
During hearing, the Ld. AR pleaded only additional ground and submitted that the CIT(A) fixed first-hearing on 05.02.2021 and thereafter second-cum-last hearing on 03.06.2022 after a gap of one year and four months and no other hearing was given to assessee. He further pointed out that the assessee filed adjournment-request on 03.06.2022 followed by another adjournment-request on 08.07.2022 to CIT(A) on designated e-filing portal of Income-tax Departments, copies of acknowledgements downloaded
C.I. Builders P.Ltd.,Bhopal & 334/Ind/2022 A.Ys.:2011-12 & 2013-14 therefrom are placed in Paper-Book marked as “P-4”. However, Ld. CIT(A) has not taken congnizance of assessee’s adjournment-requests. Thus, the appeal-order has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to assessee. Then, Ld. AR also referred to Para No. 5 of the order of the first appeal and pointed out that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeals for non-prosecution and not decided the same in accordance with the law prescribed in Section 250(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961. For these reasons, Ld. AR prayed that the order of CIT(A) is not legal, valid and as per provisions of law; therefore the same should be quashed and matter should be remanded back to CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Ld. DR does not have any objection in remanding case back to CIT(A) but makes a prayer to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
On a careful consideration, we find sufficient merit in the submissions of Ld. AR. Firstly, we observe that the CIT(A) has passed appeal-order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without disposing of assessee’s request for adjournments. Secondly, we also note that section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. But in the present case, the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, though on the ground of non-prosecution by assessee, but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Thus, on both counts the impugned first
C.I. Builders P.Ltd.,Bhopal & 334/Ind/2022 A.Ys.:2011-12 & 2013-14 appeal-order passed by CIT(A) is not valid; the same deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for remand to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. In view of this, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01/06/2023.