HARYANA SEVA SANGH,SECUNDERABAD vs. DURGAMBA TALLAPRADA, ITO, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 132/HYD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 December 2021AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the substantive grounds to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee faced a delay in filing its appeal, which was condoned by the tribunal. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the merits of the appeal, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2017-18 arises from the CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad’s order dated 13-11-2019 passed in order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2019-20/1020323923(1), vide order u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to assessee’s delay in filing of 369 days, we notice that the assessee has explained reasons of the impugned delay to circumstances beyond its control on account of communication gap between various levels etc. Case law, Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst.Katiji & Ors [167 ITR 471] (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal Nos.9488 & 9489/2019, dt.17-12-2019 hold that such a delay; if supported by the cogent reasons must make way for the cause of substantial justice. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore.

3.

It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s order under challenge rejecting the assessee’s first appeal has been passed ex-parte. We further note that the assessee had applied for Section 154 rectification against the CPC’s action u/s.143(1) intimation. It had sought for adjournments on 05-09-2019 to 11-10-2019 (three occasions) which made the CIT(A) to decide the main case itself as ex-parte. And that too without dealing with the merits requiring framing of points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication u/s.250(6) of the Act.

4.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant substantive grounds back to the CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing at assessee’s own risk and responsibility. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd December, 2021

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →