What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to assign cogent reasons and did not provide an independent view, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter needs to be adjudicated afresh.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without independent reasoning, merely concurring with the AO's findings. The assessee's adjournment application was also not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by providing independent reasoning and considering the assessee's submissions, or if the ex-parte order was passed without due diligence.

Sanjaykumar R. Patel vs ITO | ITAT Ahmedabad 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 20/03/2019Pronounced: 26/03/2019

PER MADHUMITA ROY- JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee against the ex-parte order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the ITO W.D. 7 (1)(4) Ahmedabad u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter refered to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. It appears from the records that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed orders ex-parte on merit by simply concurring with the observation and finding of the Ld. AO.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Advocate appearing for assessee submitted before us that no cogent reason has been assigned by the Ld. CIT(A) while concurring with the finding of the Ld. AO. Neither any independent view concerning the issue is reflected in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Since the condition prescribed under sub-section 6 of Sec. 250 of the Act has not been fulfilled the matter is required to be remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the same. Factually it was pointed out by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee that he was not been able to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing of the appeal and hence the matter was decided ex- parte confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO but without expressing any independent view to that effect. More so, the adjournment application on behalf of the assessee preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) was also not taken into consideration.

On the contrary the Ld. DR contended before us that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee but he failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence the order.

We have heard Ld. Representative for the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant materials available on record. Thrice the matter was fixed for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) and in all occasions the assessee failed to appear. However, by the order impugned the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee simply by concurring the finding of the Ld. AO without assigning any cogent reasons thereto. No deliberation has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal on merit. Sub-section 6 of the Sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates the conditions of assigning reasons in respect of the conclusions made by the Ld. CIT(A).

We have also carefully considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR passed by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 146, 147 & 148/Ahd/2017 for Assessment Year 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12 wherein in a similar set of facts the Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merit afresh.

In that view of the matter we find it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the same afresh on merit taking into consideration the entire evidence on record and any other necessary evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. We make it clear that the assessee will also cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) without asking for any unnecessary adjournment.

Hence assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

[Order pronounced in the Court on 26-03-2019.] (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 26/03/2019 Tanmayआदेशक"""त"ल"पअ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

""यथ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबं"धतआयकरआयु"त/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)

"वभागीय""त"न"ध, आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

SANJAYKUMAR R. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(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