WASEEM AHMAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 36/ALLD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 January 2023AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without a decision on merits because the assessee failed to appear despite multiple opportunities. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of the Act by not discussing the issues on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without deciding on merits is valid. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 03.01.2023

O R D E R

PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal, filed by assessee, being is directed against an ex-parte appellate order dated 20.09.2022 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Allahabad/10316/2016-17( DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1045722408(1) ) passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi(hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"),for assessment year(ay):2008-09, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from penalty order dated 30.09.2015 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") for ay: 2008-09. The appeal was heard in open Court Proceedings. None appeared for the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing before SMC bench, but Shri Parveen Godbole, CA has filed adjournment application, but no authority/vakalatnama / power of attorney is filed, and hence adjournment application stand rejected. The department is represented by ld. Sr. DR, who made representation before the Bench.

Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Waseem Ahmad On Being asked by the Bench, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not appear before ld. CIT(A) despite several opportunities being granted by ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR fairly submitted that ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without discussing the issues in appeal on merit , which is not in consonance with the mandate of the Act. The ld. Sr. DR fairly submitted that the matter can be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

2.

I have heard ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. I have observed that this appeal has arisen from penalty of Rs. 71,000/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , which was later confirmed by ld. CIT(A). Without going into merits of the issue in this appeal, it is observed that the learned CIT(A) gave several opportunities of hearing to the assessee as are stated/extracted in the page 3 and 4 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A), but the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A), who was then pleased to dismiss the appeal of the assessee ex-parte in the absence of the assessee , in limine without discussing the issues on merits which were raised by assessee in grounds of appeal

in the memo of appeal filed with ld. CIT(A) and the penalty order passed by the AO was upheld by learned CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) finally recorded in his order as under: “ 4.1…………….Since there is no submission or material available on record relating to merit and in support of grounds on appeal , no decision is being rendered on merit.

5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” Reference is made to provisions of Section 250(6) of the 1961 Act, wherein learned CIT(A) is obligated to state points for determination in appeal before him, the decision thereon and the reasons for determination. On the part of the assessee, there was a consistent failure to appear before the learned CIT(A) when the appeal was called for hearing before learned CIT(A), which led learned CIT(A) to pass an ex-parte appellate order. Thus, assessee is equally to be blamed for its woes. Now, before us, the ld. Sr. DR has fairly submitted that the appellate order passed by

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 →