SHRI BHARAT P. MALDE,VALSAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 783/SRT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 September 2021AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for multiple assessment years due to non-compliance and requests for adjournment. The assessee argued that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without a speaking order, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case on merit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee by Shri S.D.Chheda – CA Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR Date of hearing 07.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 07.09.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: 1. These five appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.CIT(A) all dated 30.10.2010 for different assessment years. In all appeals, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld.Assessing Officer(ld.AO) either on penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act or in quantum assessment which is summarised as under: S.No ITA No. A.Y. Sections under which AO passed order 1 783/SRT/2018 2010-11 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 784/SRT/2018 2 2010-11 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. , 784, 785, 786 & 787/SRT/2018 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Shri Bharat P. Malade

785/SRT/2018 3 2011-12 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 786/SRT/2018 4 2012-13 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 787/SRT/2018 5 2015-16 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961.

2.

As noted above, in all appeals, the ld.CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without discussing the merit of the case, therefore, all the appeals were clubbed, heard and are decided by a consolidated order.

3.

We have heard submissions of ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of the Lower Authorities carefully. In all cases the ld.AR of the assessee made common submissions and would submit that the assessee during the hearing before the ld.CIT(A) made an application for adjournment on two occasions only. On the last time the hearing of appeal(s) were fixed on 25.10.2018. On 25.10.2018, the assessee again requested some more time, however, no further time was granted and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in a non-speaking order. The ld.AR submits that he has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if he is given opportunity either before the Tribunal or before the ld. CIT(A) . The ld.AR submits that his appeal may be disposed of by the Tribunal by considering the merits of the cases. , 784, 785, 786 & 787/SRT/2018 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Shri Bharat P. Malade

4.

On the other hand, the ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that assessee was given ample opportunity by the ld.CIT(A), assessee neither furnished any written submissions nor any documentary evidence to substantiate the ground of appeal

raised before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority left with no option except to decide the appeal on merit. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the various grounds of appeal, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals. It was submitted that if the prayer of the assessee that the appeals may be adjudicated by the Tribunal, then it would be a wrong precedent and every appellant would make such request to adjudicate appeal without appearing before ld CIT(A)/ first appellate stage.

5. In alternative submissions the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that in case, the Hon’ble Tribunal deem it appropriate to restore the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, the assessee be directed to be vigilant and to make documentary compliance of the notices. The assessee should not waste the precious time of judicial authorities.

6. We have considered the contention of both the parties. We find that before ld CIT(A), all the appeals were fixed on 10.10.2018, the assessee in all cases made prayer for adjournment on 10.10.2018. The application for adjournment allowed and the cases were again fixed for hearing on , 784, 785, 786 & 787/SRT/2018 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Shri Bharat P. Malade

25.10.2018. On 25.10.2018, the assessee again requested for some more time, however, no further time was granted. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by assessee. 7. We further find that the ld.CIT(A) has not passed the order as per mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal is required to pass order on points of determination (grounds of appeal s), decision therein on and reasons for such decision. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to decide all the grounds of appeal in all appeals on merit in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) as and when the date of hearing is fixed and to provide all necessary evidence and information without any further delay and not to seek the adjournment without any valid reasons. Accordingly the ground of appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

8. In the result, five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order announced on 07th September, 2021 at the time of hearing in virtual court hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 07 /09/2021 / SGR* , 784, 785, 786 & 787/SRT/2018 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Shri Bharat P. Malade

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →