RANKIREDDY MAHA LAKSHMI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 369/VIZ/2019Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 March 2021AY 2015-163 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the case ex-parte without considering the submissions and documents filed by the assessee. The order was passed in a cryptic manner without addressing the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the detailed submissions and documents filed before it. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, stating no submissions were received. The ITAT noted that acknowledgments for submissions were on record.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the submissions and documents filed by the assessee before passing an ex-parte order. The procedural fairness of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate

Hearing: 16/03/2021

O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16/03/2019 impugned herein passed by the ld.CIT(A), Rajamahendravaram u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2015-16.

The assessee has claimed that though the detailed submissions along with documents have been filed before the ld. CIT(A), however, ld.CIT(A) failed to consider the same in its order

(Smt. Rankireddy Maha Lakshmi) and decided the case contrary to the submissions of the assessee. The ld.AR drew our attention to the acknowledgment given by the office of the ld.CIT(A) qua written submissions and documents. The ld.AR further drew our attention to the certificate given on behalf of the assessee to the effect that the documents placed before the Bench were also made available with the ld. CIT(A).

On the contrary the ld. D R refuted the claim of the Assessee and supported the impugned order.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. From the acknowledgment as appears from paper book, it shows that the written submissions along with documents have been filed before the ld.CIT(A), however, the same does not appear in the impugned order as he failed to mention the same in its order and decided the case ex-parte and upheld the assessment order by concluding as under:-

“3.2 In the absence of any submission/information by the appellant in the appellate proceedings, I agree with the finding of the AO. In view thereof, I do not find any infirmity with the order of the AO and accordingly, the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.”

As the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case as ex-parte by ignoring the submissions and documents and passed the order in cryptic manner without considering the merits of the assessment order and/or the Assessee’s case , therefore at this stage, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case and are of the considered view that though the ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the case ex-parte but it is imperative to decide the case on (Smt. Rankireddy Maha Lakshmi) merits. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, suffice to say while affording proper and reasonable opportunity(s) of being heard to the assessee.

We also direct the Assessee to co-operate with the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and to assist as and when would be required, and in case of any default, then the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency and the ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the case in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 16th day of March, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →