9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 477 - AT - Income TaxProceedings u/s.144 - NFAC has noted the assessee s continuous non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting his contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge - HELD THAT - Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the NFAC s order has nowhere decided the assessee s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed discussion thereof. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. The impugned delay of 4 days herein is condoned as per assessee s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.This assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Issues involved: Appeal against National Faceless Appeal Centre's order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2011-12.
Details of the Judgment: 1. The appellant's appeal was against the National Faceless Appeal Centre's order, which noted the appellant's continuous non-appearance in lower appellate proceedings. The order rejected the appellant's contentions without deciding on substantive grounds as required under section 250(6) of the Act. The Judicial Member deemed it appropriate to send the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing, with the condition that the taxpayer must file and prove all relevant facts. The decision was made in the interest of justice. 2. The delay of 4 days in the case was condoned based on the appellant's submissions, citing the principle established in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) that technical aspects should not hinder substantial justice. 3. The appellant's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes based on the above terms. The order was pronounced in the open court on 08.03.2024.
|
