Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur V. The ACIT Ratlam, Delhi

ITA 234/Ind/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7933 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNIT KUMAR
• Section: 263; 144

Judgement Text

ITA No.234/Ind/2021 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur 1 अपील य अ धकरण, इ दौर यायपीठ, इ दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Virtual Hearing ITA No.234/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur बनाम/ Vs. ACIT, Ratlam (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. – AAAAK 4284 B Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Punit Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, A.M: This is an appeal by assessee against the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC” for short] in Appeal No. ITA No.234/Ind/2021 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur 2 CIT(A),Ujjain/10033/2009-10 (Manual Appeal No. U-66/2009-10), arising out of the assessment-order dated 24.12.2009 passed by Ld. ACIT, Ratlam [“Ld. AO” for short] u/s 144 read with section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” for short] for Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. The revenue is represented by Shri Punit Kumar, Ld. Sr. D/R. The appeal is, therefore, decided ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. Sr. D/R and perusing the material available on record. 3. Facts in very brief to the extent relevant to the disposal of this appeal, are such that an assessment-order dated 24.12.2009 was passed by Ld. AO u/s 144 read with section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed manual appeal to CIT(A), Ujjain. The appeal was subsequently migrated to Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC who passed order on 01.10.2021 and dismissed the appeal. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee has filed present appeal and now before us. 4. On perusal of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has stated in the opening para i.e. Para No. 1 of his order as under: ITA No.234/Ind/2021 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur 3 “This appeal was instituted on 28.01.2010 against the order dated 24.12.2009 passed under section 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the ACIT, Ratlam for assessment-year 2004-05. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeals Centre in terms of Notification No. 76/2020 dated 25.09.2020. Notice for hearing was issued electronically. This appeal is represented by the written- submission e-filed by the appellant, which is considered for disposing off this appeal.” [Emphasis supplied] Subsequently in Para No. 4 of the same order, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has stated as under: “4. Further, apart from filing the above grounds of appeal, the appellant has not filed any details / evidences / submissions to show how the A.O. has erred in adding Rs. 41,61,509/- on account of disallowance of various expenses. Repeated opportunities have been given to the appellant but it has chosen not to file any evidence / submissions etc. in its defence. In view of the same, the additions made by the A.O. are confirmed and the appellant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.” [Emphasis supplied] ITA No.234/Ind/2021 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur 4 5. Thus, while in Para No. 1 of the order, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has stated that the appeal is represented by the written submission e-filed by the appellant (means the assessee), which is considered for disposing off the appeal, in the later part of the his order in Para No. 4, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has stated that the appellant (means the assessee) has not filed any submission. This seems to be an apparent contradiction in the order of Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. There is no clarity as to whether or not the assessee has made any written submission. That apart, from reading of Para No. 1 of the order of Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, we also observe that the appeal was initially registered under manual system and later migrated to Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC in terms of National Faceless Appeal System and the notice of hearing was also issued electronically to the assessee. Hence it is quite possible that the assessee might not have been able to make adequate submissions to Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 6. In view of these peculiar facts, we are of the view that the purpose of justice would be better achieved to give one more opportunity to the assessee to make his submissions and represent his case adequately before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. Therefore, we think it appropriate to remand this matter back to Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC will give a proper hearing to the assessee and pass order resolving all grievances of assessee on merit and in accordance with law. We also direct the assesee to avail the opportunity of hearing and make submissions without fail. ITA No.234/Ind/2021 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur 5 7. In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules 1963 on 25.02.2022. Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore; दनांक Dated : 25.02.2022 Patel/Sr. PS Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar, Indore