RAMESH HARISHANKAR TIWARI,NAGPUR V. ITO, WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

ITA 587/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramesh Harishankar Tiwari, a retired employee of M/s. Western Coalfield Limited, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2021-2022. The primary contention was regarding the exemption claimed under section 10(10)(i) of the Income Tax Act for gratuity received from the Central Government, which was partially allowed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to respond to notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits as required under section 250(6) of the Act and thus restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471260 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: UMANG AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.587/NAG./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2021-2022 Ramesh Harishankar Tiwari, B-89, Sector-2, WCL CWS Colony, URJAGRAM, TADALI – 442 406. PAN ACUPT1623Q Maharashtra. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, ITO Bldg., CHANDRAPUR – 442 406. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Umang Agrawal For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2025 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.09.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2021-2022. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and retired employee of M/s. Western Coalfield Limited. The assessee filed his return of income on 30.08.2021 declaring 2 ITA.No.587/NAG./2024 income of Rs.15,51,260/- by claiming exemption u/sec.10 of the Act as payment of Gratuity was received from Central Government and the same being covered under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/sec.142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed his reply from time to time and after verification of the same, the Assessing Officer exempted the eligible gratuity sum to the tune of Rs.8,55,036/- u/sec.10(10)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.27,48,338/- vide order dated 19.12.2022 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) contending, inter alia, the Assessing Officer erred in restricting the claim of exemption u/sec.10(10)(i) of the Act to Rs.8,55,068/- instead of Rs.20 lahs and also erred in adding interest income of Rs.52,145/- as against Rs.31,607/- for the impugned assessment year. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee. Since the assessee did not file his reply nor 3 ITA.No.587/NAG./2024 written submissions, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, during the course of hearing, submitted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without affording enough opportunity and simply relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and sustained the additions. He submitted that the assessee has received Gratuity amount from the Central Government which are exempt from tax and, therefore, submitted that one more opportunity may please be provided to the assessee to substantiate his case before the learned CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 6. The Learned DR on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and therefore, the learned CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal of assessee for non- prosecution. He submitted that it is the settled position of law that simply filing of appeal does not give any right to any assessee unless and until the said appeal is effectively pursued by the concerned 4 ITA.No.587/NAG./2024 assessees. He accordingly submitted that that the order of the learned CIT(A) be confirmed. 7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities below and perused the material on record. I find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution but not decided the appeal on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act, according to which, the learned CIT(A) has to give reasons for decision and adjudication thereof. I, therefore, in the larger interest of justice, deem it fit and proper to restore the instant matter in issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) with a direction the decide the appeal on merits, by affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, it is the assessee’s sole risk and responsibility to plead and prove his case in consequential proceedings by furnishing all the information as called for by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the appeal on merits and as per fact and law, if the assessee did not respond to the notice(s) issued to him during the course of consequential proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. I hold and direct accordingly. 5 ITA.No.587/NAG./2024 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.02.2025. Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur, Dated 04th February, 2025 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Nagpur concerned 4. The CIT, Nagpur concerned 5. The D.R. ITAT, Nagpur SMC-Bench, Nagpur 6. Guard File. //By Order// True Copy Sr. Private Secretary : ITAT : Nagpur Bench NAGPUR. "