DIVYESHKUMAR L.KACHHIYA,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1065/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 February 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been heard and the CIT(A) had not passed a reasoned order. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 3 days late and was against an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC. The assessee contended that they were not heard by the revenue authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the revenue authorities was valid without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and whether the CIT(A) passed a reasoned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12/02/2024

O R D E R

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

1.

The instant appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the ITO, Ward-3, Anand, under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 3 days. Considering the merit of the matter, we condone the delay in preferring such appeal before us.

(Divyeshkumar L. Kachhiya vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2011-12 - 2 – 3. The appellant before us has challenged the order passed by the NFAC dated 16.10.2023 arising out of the order dated 20.11.2018 passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. AO for A.Y. 2011-12. In fact, the order impugned is admittedly an ex parte one. Upon perusal of the orders, it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has not finalized the matter by a reasoned order justifying the order passed by the Ld. AO while upholding the same. The appellant had also not been heard by the Revenue authorities as it is evident on record and in that view of the matter, we find further opportunity of being heard to the appellant be given. Thus, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, we set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for considering the issue afresh on merit and to pass a reasoned order upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass order strictly in accordance with law.

4.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →