Case Law Details
Mitalben Rahulkumar Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad bench, has sent a tax appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, despite the taxpayer’s failure to respond to multiple notices during the appeal process.
The case involved Mitalben Rahulkumar Shah challenging an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal, reportedly on grounds of maintainability.
The ITAT noted that the assessee did not respond to four separate notices issued by the CIT(A) seeking details or clarifications. The tribunal also observed that the assessee had not complied with requests even during the initial assessment stage.
However, the ITAT, stating it was acting in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter for a de-novo assessment by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal conditioned this decision on the assessee ensuring compliance with all future notices. It warned that failure to comply could lead to penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific judicial precedents were cited in the order.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
(1) Under the facts and circumstances of case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on wrong ground of limited. He ought to have decided the matter on merits as mentioned in statement of facts.
(2) In absence of proper service of notice Assessment Order is bad in law.
3. On going through the record, I find that notices u.s.250 of the Act were issued on 09.11.202, 15.03.2024, 29.05.2024 and 10.06.2024 requesting the assessee to submit certain details/clarification/explanation. However, in pursuance to the same the assessee failed to submit any reply. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee failed to give the sufficient reason for condonation of delay in fling the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, as not maintainable. I also find that assessee has not complied even before the Assessing Officer, hence, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer failing which the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceeding as per the provisions of the Act.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.03.2025
Author Bio
