Prakruthi Mahila Credit Society Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case of Prakruthi Mahila Credit Society Vs. ITO, the assessee appealed against the order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2017-18. The dispute arose after the CIT(A) issued five notices for hearing over a span of 40 days without sufficient time for the assessee to respond. Despite the CIT(A)’s reliance on a previous ruling in PCIT Vs. Ashokji Chanduji Takor, where sufficient opportunities were given, the assessee argued that the time gaps between notices in this case were inadequate. Furthermore, the appeal highlighted that the first notice was issued nearly 18 months after the appeal was filed, which added to the procedural flaws.
The ITAT Bangalore bench, after reviewing the situation, noted that the rapid succession of notices was unfair and did not provide the assessee enough time to comply with the process. It was also observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the facts submitted in Form 35. As a result, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed a fresh adjudication of the case, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing. The ITAT’s decision to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication was made in the interest of justice and proper procedure. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
