KULDIP SINGH,PATIALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PATIALA, PATIALA

ITA 49/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kuldip Singh, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.11.2023. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of communication by the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that this dismissal was in contravention of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal noted that both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer had passed ex-parte orders without proper adherence to the statutory requirements, thus restoring the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469600 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJMOHAN SINGH

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ,चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.49/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year :2017-18 Kuldip Singh, Patiala C/o Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate #527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh Vs. बनाम The ITO, Ward 4, Patiala èथायीलेखासं./PAN No: DCTPS6904F अपीलाथȸ/APPELLANT Ĥ×यथȸ/REPSONDENT ( PHYSICAL HERING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 03.10.2024 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2024 आदेश/Order The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order dt 20.11.2023 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. At the outset, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee before the Bench that since the appeal has been decided ex- parte by the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the same in limine because the Assessee did not receive any communications from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. The ld. Counsel 49-Chd-2024 – Kuldip Singh, Patiala 2 pointed out that the order passed by the CIT(A) is in contravention of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), which mandates that the appeal shall be disposed off by the CIT(A) in writing and the CIT(A) shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reason for the decision. The ld. Counsel submitted that with the ex-parte order of the CIT(A), there has been substantial miscarriage of justice. Then ld counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to present his appeal on merit so that the order could be made after taking into account merits of the issues. The ld. counsel also stated that it would be in the interest of justice and fair play, if the appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, as before the Assessing Officer also, the order was passed ex-parte when the notice issued by the Assessing Officer could not be served on the Assessee. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below and submitted that non-appearance by the Assessee before the authorities below showed the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee and also lack of interest in prosecution of mater before either of the authorities. Therefore, considering these facts, the appeal of the Assessee may me dismissed. 49-Chd-2024 – Kuldip Singh, Patiala 3 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, I note that the proceedings before the authorities were ex- parte as the Assessee failed to appear before both the authorities. I note that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) has been made in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which mandates that the CIT(A) shall decide the appeal in writing, considering the point of determination, his decision thereon and also reasons for the said decision. I also note that before the A.O. also, the order was ex-parte. Therefore, the ends of justice would be well served if the appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.Accordingly, I restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh on merits. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04.10.2024. Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR ) Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयआͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "