M/s. Khairabad Eye Hospital, Kanpur. V. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Kanpur

ITA 100/LKW/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Khairabad Eye Hospital Society, which appealed against the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kanpur, determining the assessee's total income at Rs.36,37,956 for the assessment year 2012-13. The initial appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as the notices were allegedly 'Refused to Accept' by the assessee, leading to a summary dismissal without a detailed examination of the merits. The assessee contested that the notices were never tendered to any authorized person and were never refused, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's arguments and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113227 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.100/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.100/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Khairabad Eye Hospital Society 112/202, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. PAN:AAATK3893P Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) In this case assessment order was passed on 13/01/2015 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.36,37,956/-. (B) The assessee filed appeal in the office of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [learned “CIT(A)” for short] against the aforesaid assessment order. Vide impugned appellate order dated 16/12/2015 of learned CIT(A), the assessee’s appeal was dismissed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. While dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) relied on the order of ITAT, New Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320. The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee was issued notices but the notices returned back from the postal authority with the remark “Refused to Accept”. The learned CIT(A) Appellants by Shri Pradeep Seth, C.A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 31/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 01/06/2023 I.T.A. No.100/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2012-13 2 further observed that the appellant ‘not only chose to ignore the last date of hearing but even did not approach this office earlier’ . The learned CIT(A) went on to dismiss the assessee’s appeal treating the appeal as not pressed. (C) Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short) against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, an affidavit was filed from the assessee’s side, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: “1. That the deponent is the treasurer of the above named society namely, M/s Khairabad Eye Hospital Society and is therefore well versed with the facts deposed hereunder – 2. That the notices dated 26/03/2015, 22/05/2015 and 19/11/2015 said to have been issued by the CIT(A)-II, Kanpur vide para 2 of the appellate order for compliance on 06/04/2015, 28/05/2015 and 10/12/2015 respectively were never tendered by the postal authority to any person authorized to receive such notices and were never refused by any such person. Therefore, the facts stated in para 2 of the appellate order are to the above extent factually incorrect. 3. That the contents of para 1 are true and correct to the personal knowledge of the deponent and the contents of para 2 above are partly based on personal knowledge and partly on the information gathered.” (C.1) At the time of hearing before us, learned Authorized Representative for the assessee (“learned AR" for short) placed reliance on the aforesaid affidavit and submitted that the notices issued by the office of learned CIT(A) were never tendered by the postal authority to any person authorized to receive such notices and were never refused by any such person. He also submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not pressed, because the appellant assessee has been throughout keen to pursue the appeal. The learned AR for the assessee further I.T.A. No.100/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2012-13 3 submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner for violation of the provisions u/s 250(6) of the Act. He submitted further that the learned CIT(A) is duty bound u/s 250(6) of the IT Act to pass a speaking order on various grounds of appeal, on merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. In view of the foregoing, learned AR for the assessee submitted, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the issue in dispute should be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (C.2) The learned Sr. D.R. for the Revenue left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. (C.2.1) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. In view of the submissions made by the Learned A. R. for the assessee, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 16/12/2015 to the file of learned CIT(A) and we direct the learned CIT(A) to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 01/06/2023) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:01/06/2023 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar