SHRI MOHAMMAD YAQOOB BANDAY,BUDGAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 212/ASR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 October 2023AY 2017-18Bench: DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay on compassionate grounds. It held that the ex-parte orders by the lower authorities violated the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay due to personal and medical reasons. Both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders, denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders passed without granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 30.10.2023Pronounced: 31.10.2023

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 13.09.2022 in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18 challenging therein the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) arising out of the ex-

Mohammad Yaqoob Banday v. ITO parte Assessment Order passed by the AO by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srinagar.

2.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 245 days in filing the appeal on account of the assessee being old, illiterate and his son has been suffering, admitting to SMS Srinagar who looked after her and its matter regarding filing of return, business activity and other matters. Thus, he requested for condonation of delay on compassionate ground.

3.

The ld. DR although objected to the request of the assessee, however, considering the medical ground of the appellant assessee, the delay is condoned in the interest of justice and appeal is admitted on merits.

4.

At time of hearing in Virtual Court, the counsel submitted that both the lower authorities, the AO and the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee and thus, the assessee has been denied the opportunity of being heard in violation of principles of natural justice. He pleaded that the appellant may be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard before the AO to present its case in view of the natural justice. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without going into the merits

Mohammad Yaqoob Banday v. ITO of the case and confirmed the addition made by the AO in an ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act in violation of principles of natural justice. He pleaded that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass denovo assessment order after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to present its case before the Assessing Officer. In support, he placed the reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of “Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Union of India.”

5.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the impugned order.

6.

Heard both the sides, perused the material on record and the impugned order. We find that both the lower authorities have passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee. Thus, the assessee has been deprived of an opportunity of being heard by the authorities below in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of that matter, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter to the file of the AO to pass denovo assessment order after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the denovo assessment proceedings before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

Mohammad Yaqoob Banday v. ITO 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →