What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not formulating points for determination and recording reasons for the decision, even in the absence of the assessee.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The assessee had failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merit, and whether the CIT(A) followed the mandatory procedure for passing an order.

Bhupatbhai Keshubhai Gohel vs ITO | ITAT Ahmedabad 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AR

Hearing: 12/07/2019

Assessee by : Shri M.K. Patel, AR Revenue by : Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 12/07/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 17 /07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad dated 18.12.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2013-14.

In ground no.1 and 2, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution without adjudicating each ground on merit.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee has filed an application for listing the appeal out-of-turn hearing. While hearing the 2 application we find that appeal of the assessee was dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, we confronted both the parties as to why this appeal be not taken for hearing on merit itself. Both the ld.representatives did not object for taking up the appeal for hearing. A perusal of order of the ld.CIT(A) would show that appeal was listed on four occasions, but the assessee did not appear. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter dismissed the appeal in default for want of prosecution.

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. Even if the assessee did not participate, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have gone through the assessment record and thereafter formed the point in dispute, and should have recorded reasons in support of her conclusions on those points. The ld.CIT(A) failed to adhere the mandatory procedure, hence her order is not sustainable. We allow this appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A). All issues are 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 dilatory tactics as a strategy to prolong the proceedings

3 and shall cooperate for adjudication of the issue before the ld.CIT(A) in accordance with law.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 17th July, 2019.

BHUPATBHAI KESHUBHAI GOHEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

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