RASHIDA AHMEDAHUSAIN MOMIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 186/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 April 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure by not formulating points of dispute and recording reasons, even in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for want of prosecution. The CIT(A) had issued notices for hearing on multiple occasions, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without formulating points of dispute and recording reasons, even if the assessee fails to appear.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘B’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Alkesh for Shri S.N. Divetia, AR
Hearing: 08/04/2019

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 12.12.2018 passed for the Asstt.Year 2010-11.

ITA No.186/Ahd/2019

2.

In the first ground of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee exparte for want of prosecution.

3.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the CIT(A)’s order would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has issued notice to the assessee for arguing the appeal on three occasions, but on each occasion no one had appeared, and accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) after putting reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol Vs. Union of India (Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009) has observed that every judicial and quasi-judicial authority is entitled to dismiss the case before him on account of want of prosecution. 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.”

5.

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

ITA No.186/Ahd/2019

her order is not sustainable. We allow this appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of the ld.CIT9A). All the issues are remitted back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

9.

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

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

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →