What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by passing an ex-parte order without deciding the issue on merits. The tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice principles.

The assessee company filed its return of income, and subsequent assessment orders were passed. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without deciding the issue on merits, citing that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunities and deciding the case on merits. Whether the CIT(A) followed the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act.

Kalcyon Asia Business and… vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal Nair, C.A

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R

Hearing: 08.08.2022Pronounced: 08.08.2022

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Halcyon Asia Vs. ITO Business and Development Ward -12(3) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-49, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044 PAN No. AABCH 4815 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Venugopal Nair, C.A. Revenue by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 08.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 08.08.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2009-10.

Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :-

Assessee is a company who filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 31.03.2010 declaring total income of Nil. Thereafter, revised return was filed on 30.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,04,775/-. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 23.12.2011 determining the total income at Rs. 11,59,000/-. Thereafter, the case was reopened and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 21.03.2013. Subsequently, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 10.02.2014 and the total income was assessed at Rs.86,82,094/-.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: i. “The Learned CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances in holding that appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter, without providing adequate opportunities to present the case. ii. Reasons given by learned CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal filed before him are wrong, insufficient and contrary to facts and evidence on record and in law.”

5. Before us, Learned AR at the outset, stated that the reasons given by CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal are wrong, insufficient and contrary to facts and evidence on record and in law and while dismissing the appeal he has not decided the issue on merits. He stated that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to plead its case and he undertakes that the assessee would be represented before the authorities and all the required details called for by authorities will be furnished.

Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of AO.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the grounds of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8. statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2022

KALCYON ASIA BUSINESS AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 12(3), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments