IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT)

BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 171/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Mass House Building Vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle1 Co Op. Ltd., 116 North Block (Range Code 86), Bahu Plaza, Jammu-180012 Jammu Jammu & Kashmir [PAN: AAATM9921G]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Sh. Anubhav Jain, Adv.

Respondent by :

Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

ORDER

Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.02.2024 in respect of Assessment Year: 2018-19 which is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3)

r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, NeAC, Delhi.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-

24/1061153230(1) dated 19.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice and merits to be remanded back for fresh adjudication.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 has failed to provide for a final opportunity to the Appellant.

The Appellant had filed adjournment letters before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that it was in the process of compiling necessary explanations and supporting documents.

Prolonged health issues of the Authorized Representative resulted in non- appearance which finally resulted in passing the impugned order without granting final opportunity of being heard to the Appellant by the office of CIT(A).”

3. The assessee has raised the sole issue that the impugned order was passed against the principles of natural justice with a request to be remanded back for fresh adjudication.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the letter/communication issued through enablement of communication window by NFAC, generated on

15.11.2022. Relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced as under:

“The communication window with the CIT(A) has been enabled”

4.1 Notice u/s 250 was issued to the appellant through the e- proceedings facility on 18.09.2023. In response the appellant filed a reply asking for adjournment. The screenshot of the same is affixed as under:

4.2 Subsequently, notices u/s 250 were issued to the appellant through the e-proceedings facility on 03.10.2023. In response the appellant filed a reply asking for one more adjournment. The screenshot of the same is affixed as under:

4.3 Again one more notice u/s 250 was issued to the appellant through the e-proceedings facility on 14.02.2024. In response the appellant filed reply asking for adjournment. The screenshot of the same is affixed as under:

6. However, the appellant responded and was only asking adjournment after adjournment instead of giving any reply or written submission with documentary evidence and it is noticed that appellant uses similar standard format for requesting adjournment from time to time. This attitude shows that the appellant is not really interested in submitting the reply and disposal of appeal but is only seeking adjournment after adjournment to keep delays the conclusion of appeal proceedings which cannot be allowed.

6.1. In view of the same the request for the adjournment for 3^rd time in a row, despite giving sufficient opportunities as requested by the appellant in the earlier two instances, is rejected and the appeal proceedings are being concluded based on material available on records. Taking into view, the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B dated 29.04.2021 and the Form No.35 dated 31.05.2021 having grounds of appeal and statement of facts, the appeal is disposed off as under:

5. The Ld. AR for the appellant submitted that since, the Appellant filed adjournment application and could not file the written submissions for three noti