MRS SHIVANGI SHYAM SATARDEKAR,CURCHOREM V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

ITA 184/PAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shivangi Shyam Satardekar, the appellant, who challenged the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal arose from an assessment order for the year 2015-16, which was initially contested but dismissed by the NFAC for non-prosecution. The dismissal was attributed to the non-availability of the appellant's authorized representative due to medical treatment. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request to set aside the NFAC's order and provide another opportunity for the case to be heard, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473504 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAZEERA MOHAMMAD LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHORE BANDEKAR LD.
• Section: 147; 144; 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 3 BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 184/PAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shivangi Shyam Satardekar H.No. 685, Nr GPS Khamamol, Curchorem, Goa-403706. PAN:ALIPS2981F . . . . . . . Appellant V/s The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Kishore Bandekar [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Ms Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 26/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27/11/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The Present appeal is filed by the assesse challenging the DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065345946(1) dt. 03/06/2024 passed u/s 250 of passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short ‘NFAC’] which ascended out of assessment order dt. 25/04/2023 passed for assessment year 2015-16 [for short ‘AY’] by the National Faceless e-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [For short ‘AO’]. Shivangi Shyam Satardekar Vs ITO ITA Nos.184/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 3 2. Without touching merits of the case, we have heard rival parties submission on the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal by the Ld. NFAC for non-prosecution and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record, considered the facts in the light of settled legal position. 3. We note that, the assessee is an individual in whose case order dt. 25/04/2023 the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was completed and thereby assessed the total income at ₹1,71,33,812/- as against income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved assessee challenged the assessment before Ld. NFAC, which came to be dismissed in limine for non-prosecution. We also note that, during the course of first appellate proceedings the Ld. NFAC issued as many as five separate notices & granted the appellant assessee due hearing/opportunity to substantiate its claim with evidential documents. In the event of failure on the part of assessee to respond, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. The reasons of non-prosecution of appeals by the appellant were solely attributable non-availability of authorised representative Mr Kumar Mahant who after representing the assessee in assessment proceedings was under-going medical treatment for cancer. The Shivangi Shyam Satardekar Vs ITO ITA Nos.184/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 3 material in the form of diagnosis report and hospitalisation clearly suggests that, the appellate assessee was unable to represent her case owning to non-availability of authorised representative & non- prosecution was accidental. Therefore we see force in the prayer of the appellant to set-aside the impugned order and to accord one more opportunity to place evidential material in support of grounds raised before the Ld. NFAC, which Ld. DR could hardly dispute. 5. In view hereof, without commenting on merits, we set-aside this impugned order under challenge and remit it back to the files of Ld. NFAC with a direction to adjudicate respective subject matter de- novo in accordance with law after providing three effective opportunities to the assessee and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 6. In result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on the mentioned hereinbefore. -S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 27th day of November, 2024. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. "