SUDAMA DEVI L/H LAL CHAND YADAV,SONEBHADRA vs. CIT (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 157/ALLD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 February 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the appeal on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee claims lack of proper notice, and the ITAT notes the postal remark 'incomplete address' for a notice sent to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly afforded an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Whether the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of representation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)

PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad, dated 21/9/2017 for assessment year 2009- 10. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issuance of notice through RPAD, which has been returned back unserved, with the postal remark “incomplete address”. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on the address mentioned in form No.36. The assessee has not communicated any change of address. However, we find that this appeal can be disposed of in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. and after considering the material placed on record. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution. The ld.

1.

CIT(A) has recorded certain dates of hearing in his order, but there is no proof whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee.

4.

Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As such, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them.

5.

In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/02/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →