CPC intimation treated as original notice of demand u/s 156 for filing appeal. CIT(A) rejected appeal as defective but ITAT remanded the matter
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2589 (2018) (10) ITAT
The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) in rejecting the appeal of the assessee for not filing original notice of demand issued u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis that the appeal was defective because the assessee had not filed original notice of demand issued u/s 156 of the Act or a certified copy thereof.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted a copy of intimation received from DCIT, CPC and pointed out that in the said intimation, it had been stated that this intimation may be treated as notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act and the assessee was requested to pay the entire demand within 30 days from receipt of the intimation.
The assessee submitted that the said intimation received from DCIT, CPC was submitted before CIT(A) along with Form No. 35 and hence, this was not correct to say that the assessee had not submitted the copy of demand notice along with Form No. 35 filed before CIT(A).
It was further submitted that the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal observed that I also find that as per the impugned order, CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee as defective and without admitting the same. The reason given by CIT(A) for treating the appeal as defective was this that the assessee had not furnished either the original notice of demand issued u/s 156 or a certified copy thereof along with Form No. 35 filed before him.
The Tribunal observed that as per the CPC intimation, it had been stated that this intimation may be treated as notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act. Therefore, the ITAT opined that it would be proper to restore back the matter to the file of CIT(A) for a decision on merit after admitting the appeal of the assessee
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and the matter was restored back to the file of CIT(A) for decision on merit.
Supreme Court stays DGGI order on the issue of bar on two parallel GST proceedings in terms of Section 6(2)(b)…
Assessee could not said to indulged in penny stock sale on human probabilities without showing his involvement – ITAT deleted…
Before staying CESTAT order the High Court should have framed the substantial questions of law and thereafter could have passed…
Chartered Accountant issuing Form 15CB not required check genuineness or otherwise of documents submitted by his clients – Supreme Court…
Ongoing investigation qua absconding person, cannot be a ground to deny bail to person against whom the investigations have been…
Accommodation entry operators also routinely obtain PAN, file ITRs, and maintain bank accounts, to give a facade of legitimacy to…