PUNEET SINGAL,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 227/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2022AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) must decide the appeal on merits, even if proceeding ex parte. The ex parte dismissal for non-prosecution without considering the merits was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for interest expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) can dismiss an appeal ex parte without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57(iii),Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. BRR KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA, Ms. Indu Sen, SR. DR
Hearing: 27.06.2022Pronounced: 30.06.2022

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 25.10.2019 of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Hissar for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

We have heard Shri Lalit Mohan, learned authorized representative of the assessee and Ms. Indu Sen, learned Departmental Representative.

3.

Basic grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of his appeal by the first appellate authority.

4.

Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 14.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs.9,93,160. Assessment in case of assessee was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2018. While completing the assessment, Assessing Officer added back an amount of Rs.41,00,394 representing deduction of interest expenditure claimed under Section 57(iii) of the Act.

Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, alleging that assessee despite opportunity of hearing being given, didn’t appear and represent his case, disposed of the appeal ex parte by dismissing it.

5.

Having considered rival submissions, perused material available on record, we find, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while proceeding ex parte against assessee has dismissed the appeal in limine for non- prosecution. As per the mandate of Section 250 of the Act, learned first appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits, though, there is no fetters on learned Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed ex parte in case of failure on the part of the appellant to represent his case, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) is to decide the appeal on merits. That is not the case in the facts of the present appeal.

Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to him for de novo adjudication on merits after due opportunity of being heard to assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2022.

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →