What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure of formulating points for determination and recording reasons for the decision, even in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable.

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against an assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for want of prosecution, as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during multiple hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex parte without formulating points of dispute and recording reasons. Whether the CIT(A) must still examine the assessment record and provide reasoning even if the assessee is absent.

Virjibhai Nathubhai Patel vs ITO | ITAT Ahmedabad 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘B’

Before: SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE- & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, with Shri Mehul Talera, AR

Hearing: 10/04/2019Pronounced: 10/04/2019

PER A.D. JAIN, VICE-PRESIDENT:

Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-7 dated 31.10.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2009- 10.

In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte for want of prosecution.

ITA No.2780/Ahd/2017 2

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the ld.CIT(A) has fixed the hearing of the appeal on three-four occasions, but no-one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and therefore, she dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. In this connection, it is pertinent to take note of sub- section (6) of section 250 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 the issues are remitted back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 10th April, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT

Ahmedabad; Dated 10/04/2019

VIRJIBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), 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