What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the NFAC. The assessee is directed to present its case on merits with necessary documents, and the NFAC is to pass a speaking order.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the NFAC because the assessee or its representative failed to appear or seek an adjournment despite receiving notices. The NFAC's order did not adjudicate the case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, and whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Souhard… vs ITO | ITAT Panaji 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH :: PANAJI

For Appellant: Shri Sateesh Nadagouda, CA

For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Hearing: 14/08/2023Pronounced: 21/08/2023

(A.Y. 2017-18) Sunadholi Mahila Pattin vs ITO, Ward-1, Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Gokak. Sunadholi, Tal – Gokak, Dist. Belagavi, Karnataka. PAN: AACAS 9316 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sateesh Nadagouda, CA Revenue by : Shri N. Shrikanth, DR Date of hearing : 14/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R

Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, ‘NFAC’), dated 14.12.2021 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

Despite service of notices on various dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment is filed before the NFAC. Therefore, NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the NFAC has passed an ex-parte

Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Souhard Sahakari order and the rights and liabilities of the parties herein were not adjudicated on merits. That on perusal of Para 3 of the NFAC’s order, it is seen that the assessee or its authorised representative neither appeared nor submitted any letter seeking adjournment in response to the notices issued.

That further it is evident from Para 4 of the order of NFAC that it had decided the appeal considering the statements of facts, grounds of appeal and material on record. The process of judicial adjudication requires Quasi-Judicial authority to adjudicate the case on merits and come out with a speaking order. In the present case, the NFAC was unable to do so because of the evasive nature of the assessee. However, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and the very fact, the Income Tax Act is welfare legislation; we are of the considered view that one final opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent its case on merits. Therefore, the assessee is directed to present itself through its authorised representative before the NFAC immediately on receipt of this order along with relevant/ necessary documents to present its case on merits before the NFAC and it shall adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order while complying with the principles of natural justice. Issuance of any further notice to assessee is dispensed with. In view of the aforesaid directions, we set aside the order of the NFAC and remand the matter back to its file.

Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Souhard Sahakari 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 21st August, 2023

SUNADHOLI MAHILA PATTIN SOUHARD SAHAKARI NY,SUNADHOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments