Bijapure Fitness Studio Private Limited, Karad V. Income Tax Officer,Ward-3, Satara, Satara

ITA 810/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Bijapure Fitness Studio Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2016-2017. The NFAC had affirmed the addition of Rs.3,82,34,736 as unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's failure to appear in the lower appellate proceedings despite receiving four notices. The Tribunal found that the NFAC had not adjudicated the correctness of this addition and decided to remand the case back to the NFAC for a detailed examination and decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137015 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.810/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Bijapure Fitness Studio Private Limited, 36, Super Market, Shaniwar Peth, Karad – 415 110 Maharashtra. PAN AAECB4446J vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aayakar Bhawan, Pawai Naka, Manjunath Manor, Satara. Maharashtra. PIN – 415 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S. Shingte For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 28.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2016- 2017, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1052324733(1), dated 25.04.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard Both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that there is hardly any need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix once the learned NFAC’s impugned order 2 I.T.A.No.810/PUN./2023 observes in para-4 that the assessee had failed to appear in the lower appellate proceedings despite having received four notices. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argued before us that the assessee’s non-appearance/non- cooperation only led the NFAC to affirm the assessment findings making sec.68 unsecured loans addition of Rs.3,82,34,736/-. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival submissions and see no reason; at this stage, to express our concurrence with either parties submissions. This is for the precise reason that the learned NFAC has nowhere adjudicated correctness of the above stated addition after framing the corresponding points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication u/sec.250(6) of the Act. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication on merits, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 3 I.T.A.No.810/PUN./2023 Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.07.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 31 st July, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi 4. The Pr.CIT Pune-3, Pune. Maharashtra. 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “A” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.