Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.06.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2013-14.
Oracle Constructions v. ITO 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.
CIT(A) has rejected the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee by stating that the he is not interested in pursuing the appeal and hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed for non- prosecution vide para 7.2 of the impugned order.
The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed two appeals before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi against the order of ITO (TDS), Srinagar dated 30.03.2021 wherein in one appeal the financial year was mentioned as 2013-14 due to some inadvertent error in place of financial year 2012-13 which has been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) and the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the mistake was rectified by correcting the financial year as 2012-13 by filing the appeal again in Form No. 35 13.09.2021 before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi against the said order of the ITO (TDS), Srinagar dated 30.03.2021. A copy of acknowledgement filed on record (APB Pg. No. 10). The counsel has requested that on filing a revised Form No. 35 by correcting the financial year, the old appeal memo get merged with the new appeal memo in Form No. 35. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the old appeal ex-parte qua the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, he requested that the Oracle Constructions v. ITO matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal along with the correct appeal memo filed in Form No. 35 by rectifying the mistake in financial year by as 2012-13. The counsel has contended that although the appellant has received notices in respect of both the appeals and submissions were also filed on 10th July, 2023 along with paper book (APB Pg. 47) in respect of appeals filed, however, the last notice was sent on portal could not be excess by the assessee due to some inadvertent error. He prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the two appeal together by way of merger being assessment arising out of the same order of the ITO (TDS), Srinagar, dated 30.03.2021. The counsel undertakes to cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi by filing requisite information and reconciliation of the two appeal memos on similar grounds of appeal filed in respect of the same order of the ITO (TDS), Srinagar as above.
4. Per contra, the ld. DR has supported the impugned order by contending that several opportunities have been granted to the appellant assessee, however, we failed to rebut the contention of the appellant on facts of the case that the two appeals were filed by the appellant and that Oracle Constructions v. ITO the duplicate appeal was filed rectifying the mistake in writing financial year in respect of the same order of the ITO (TDS), Srinagar dated 30.03.2021.
We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the appellant has filed two appeals against the same order of ITO (TDS), Srinagar dated 30.03.2021 on 07.09.2021 and another appeal on 13.09.2021. It is contended by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee against the appeal filed on 07.09.2021 by mentioning a wrong financial year as 2013-14 in place of 2012-13 due to some inadvertent error by the technical staff of the counsel of the assessee. In our view, the assessee deserves to be granted one more opportunity of being heard in view of the principles of natural justice before the ld. CIT(A) who has rejected the appeal by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. Under the circumstances, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh along with the another appeal filed on 13.09.2021 wherein the appellant has mentioned the correct financial year in respect of the same order of the ITO (TDS), Srinagar dated 30.03.2021, after considering the submissions already filed by the appellant on record and to be filed during the fresh proceedings. No doubt, the Oracle Constructions v. ITO appellant shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A).
Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2023