ASHOKKUMAR KALUBHAI NAKRANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE- & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT [Conducted through Virtual Court at Ahmedabad]
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Stay Application No.05/SRT/2020 WITH ITA No.419/SRT/2019 �नधा�रण वष�/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Ashokkumar Kalubhai Nakrani Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2) 1, Vandana Society Surat. Shyam Dham Road Opp: Amardeep Society Nana Varachha, Varachha Road Surat.PAN : AEIPN 8731 K
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Viresh I. Rudalal, AR Revenue by : Smt.Anupama Singhla, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 24/08/2020 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/08/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT Present stay application is directed at the instance of the assessee for grant of ad-interim stay of outstanding demand of Rs.62,26,284/-.
With the assistance of ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the present appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the ld.CIT(A)-3, Surat dated 22.5.2019 passed for the Asstt.Year 2014-15. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs.1,69,16,325/-. A perusal of the ld.CIT(A)’s order would reveal that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit, rather
SP No.05/SRT/2020 with ITA No.419/SRT/2019 2 dismissed it for want of prosecution. Therefore, we put to both the parties as to why the appeal itself be not taken for hearing. The ld.representatives did not raise objection qua this proposition, and therefore, we took the appeal for hearing.
A perusal of order of the ld.First appellate Authority would indicate that the appeal was listed on 12 occasions, but according to the ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not comply with the summons issued to him and did not appear before the ld.first appellate authority.
Sub-section (6) of section 250 has a direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this clause which reads as under:
“6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”
On perusal of section would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) was required to formulate points in dispute, and thereafter record reasons on such points. No doubt the assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) in spite of notices issued on eleven occasions, but in that cases also the ld.CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merit instead of dismissing it limine for want of prosecution. The ld.CIT(A) failed to adhere the mandatory procedure contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act, hence his order is not sustainable. We allow this appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A). The issue is remitted back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, during the set aside proceedings, the assessee shall not indulge in
SP No.05/SRT/2020 with ITA No.419/SRT/2019 3 dilatory tactics as a strategy to prolong the proceedings and shall cooperate for adjudication of the issue before the ld.CIT(A) in accordance with law.
In the result, Stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 24th August, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
