New Vision Laser Centres (Kilkatta) LLP, Vadodara V. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

ITA 229/AHD/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9052 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.229/Ahd/2022 Asstt.Year : 2018-19 New Vision Laser Centers (Kolkata) 402, 4 th Floor, RK Centre Fatehgunj road Vadodara. PAN : AAPFN 4301 G Vs ITO, Ward-4(1)(7) Vadodara. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Thawani स ु नवाई क तार ख/D a t e o f H e a r i n g : 0 7 / 0 9 / 2 0 2 2 घोषणा क तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 0 8 / 0 9 / 2 0 2 2 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)( hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 31.3.2022 pertaining to Asst.Year 2018-19. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee or any application seeking adjournment was filed. 3. I have noted from the orders of authorities below that the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal against the intimation made on him under section 143(1) of the Act in the case of summary assessment done on the return filed by the assessee for ITA No.229 /Ahd/2022 2 the impugned year. A perusal of the said intimation reveals that adjustment was made to the assesses returned income by restricting the loss claimed by the assessee from Rs.43,85,819/- to Rs.61,718/-. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that, despite sufficient opportunity provided, no submissions were filed before him in the faceless appeal proceedings. 4. I am of the view that even if the ld.CIT(A) perforce had to decide the appeal ex parte, he should atleast have gone into the facts of the issue and determined the reasons why the assessee’s claim of loss was reduced. I find that nether the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act points out reasons for reduction in the loss so claimed by the assessee nor the ld.CIT(A) made any effort to find out the same. Even if the assessee did not cooperate it was still imperative for the Ld.CIT(A) to have atleast found out what the facts of the case/issue were which are all part of record of the department and could have been easily ascertained by him. It cannot be said therefore that he has adjudicated the issue. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the ld.CIT(A), who is directed to first determine the reasons why losses were so reduced and thereafter adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Needless to add, the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set aside proceedings. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 8 th September, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 8/9/2022