RAVINDRA KUMAR RAI,JHANSI vs. ITO, CHAHATARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 686/AGR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 March 2021AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders and failed to decide the appeals on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders which sustained additions and disallowed certain expenses. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) decided the appeals without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decided the appeals on merits. Whether the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Respondent: Smt. Sita Srivastava, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.03.2021Pronounced: 04.03.2021

ORDER Per Bench: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders dated 22.06.2018 and 07.10.2019 of ld. CIT(A) Gwalior for the A.Yrs. 2012-13 and 2011- 12, challenging the sustenance of addition made by the Assessing Officer by applying gross profit rate of 5% on the gross receipts for A.Y. 2012-13 and also challenging the disallowance of remuneration paid to the partners and other expenditure in the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

2.

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in paragraph No. 5 & 6 of the impugned orders, referring to the orders in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattahargee & Ors. 118 ITR 461 and Tribunal order in the matter of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del), has decided the appeals in limine, as the assessee could not avail reasonable opportunity of being heard on merits. It was submitted that the assessee needs one more opportunity of hearing to put up its cases on merits, as the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeals has not gone deep into the merits of additions.

3.

Per contra the ld. DR relying upon the orders of ld. CIT(A) submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard were afforded to the assessee and therefore, the impugned orders need no interference.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through entire material available on record. It is borne out on record that the impugned orders have been passed ex parte qua assessee and the appeals have been dismissed by relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. (supra). As per provisions of section 250(6) of the IT Act, the ld. CIT(A) is required to decide the appeals on merits, thereby incorporating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision, which is lacking in the present cases. In such view of the matter, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice to remand all these appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits in terms of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given proper opportunity of being heard before finally deciding the appeals on merits.

5.

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04/03/2021

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →