MANSHA RAM,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SOLAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 36/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed an order on merit. To ensure justice and uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte due to non-appearance. The assessee contended that they were not properly served and the CIT(A) did not provide findings on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper service and without adjudicating on merits. Whether cash deposits during demonetization were wrongly added to income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271F,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH

Before: DR KRINWANT SAHAY & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.07.2024Pronounced: 29.07.2024

आदेश/Order

Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

1.

Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 14.11.2023 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.

2.

Grounds of appeal are as under: - 1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjustified and unethical the appeal

36-Chd-2024 – Mansa Ram, Solan 2 of the Appellant, through the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause.

2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not observing that applicant was not properly served and ex- parte order was passed

3.

That the assessment order u/s 144 of Income Tax Act and penalty order under section 27IF and penalty order under section 271AAC of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Ld. Income Tax Officer, Solan is unjustified and against the law.

4.

That Ld. Income Tax Officer has wrongly added the cash deposit during demonitaion period to the income of assessee.

5.

That Ld. Assessing Officer is unjustified in imposing penalty under section 27IF and 271AAC of The Income Tax Act, 1961.

6.

That the orders of Id AO are illegal and same may kindly be quashed.

7.

That appellant take leave to amend alter add or argued any other issue found at the time of hearing of appeal with the permission of The Hon’ble Tribunal

7. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that it is an ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). In his order the CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit, rather because of non- appearance / non-response from the Assessee, he has simply dismissed the appeal. Therefore, it was requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A).

36-Chd-2024 – Mansa Ram, Solan 3

8.

The ld. DR had no objection to it.

9.

We have considered the submissions and the arguments of the ld. Counsel of the Assessee and the ld. DR. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order on merit on the basis of material available on record, therefore, we are of the considered view that to meet the end of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A). Accordingly, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits, 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 CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

10.

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on 29.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 271F

All 927 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →