UPENDRA SINGH,SASARAM vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, GAYA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 321/PAT/2023Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 September 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without stating points of dispute and recording reasons. The impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(Appeals) without proper notice. The assessee claimed that the alleged notices were never served, preventing them from filing submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) correctly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper notice and adherence to procedural requirements.

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, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad

Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that appeal was decided by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and no notice was issued to the assessee. The alleged notices mentioned in the impugned order were never served upon the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not know about the status of his appeal and, therefore, could not file submission.

3.

With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which is contrary to the mandate given in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Sub-section 6 of section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT(Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons on those points. But in the present case, ld. CIT(Appeal) did not follow this mandatory procedure and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore all these issues to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merit. The ld. CIT(Appeals) shall decide the issues after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →