TANISHA AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(5), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 609/LKW/2019Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 October 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and failing to decide on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution without proper notice or opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee and deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

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, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow-2, dated 30.8.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16, raising the following grounds:

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) II has erred in law in deciding the appeal ex-parte for non- prosecution.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal II) has erred in law for nor deciding the appeal on merits as per provision of section 250 of IT Act and is also against the principle of natural justice.

3. That the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed the claim of long term capital gain u/s 10(38) without bringing any material on records.

4.

That the amount of long term capital gain of Rs.41,74,520/- has been added u/s 69A merely on suspicions and surmises.

5. That the assessment order passed is arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reason is invalid and bad in law.

2.

By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded certain dates of issuance of notice, but there is no mention as to whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee.

3.

Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As such, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite ['S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT' 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and 'Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT', 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 4. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/10/2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →