JAI CHAND HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 129/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 September 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI A.D. JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case. To ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued they had no opportunity to present their case on merits before either authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to alleged non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b), and whether the assessee was denied natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

1.

The appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 09.01.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.

2.

Grounds of appeal are as under: -

129-Chd-2024 – Jai Chand HUF, Chandigarh 2

1. That Whether the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on account of arbitrary interpretation of section of 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the Assessment Order without adjudicating merits of the case.

3.

Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO had erred in adding the income of Rs. 39,77,114/- belonging to the Individual Jai Chand having PAN- BDAPC7338H in the hands of Appellant HUF having PAN- AACHJ2903D

4.

That the impugned Order had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in this case the Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal after giving the finding that the provisions of section 249 (4) (b) of the Act have not been complied by the Assessee. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee had no occasion to make representation on merit either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Counsel

129-Chd-2024 – Jai Chand HUF, Chandigarh 3 requested the Bench to remand this case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

4. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act and the appeal order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of provisions of section 249 (4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, in our opinion, the Assessee could not get opportunity to bring material fact on record of the A.O. Therefore, in order to provide natural justice to the Assessee, the case is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the lower authorities. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 03.09.2024.

More judgments on Section 249(4)(b)

All 347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →