ASHOKKUMAR KALUBHAI NAKRANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 419/SRT/2019Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 August 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) by not formulating points of dispute and recording reasons. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a stay application against an outstanding demand. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merits, and if so, whether this violates the procedural requirements of Section 250(6).

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, SURAT

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE- & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Viresh I. Rudalal, AR
Hearing: 24/08/2020Pronounced: 24/08/2020

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/-.

2.

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 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.

3.

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.

4.

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.”

5.

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 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.

6.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →