M/S. SHREE GANESH RICE MILL,KHURDA vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 383/CTK/2018Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 June 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to dispose of the appeal afresh with a speaking order after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and considering evidence for delay condonation.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for delay and non-prosecution. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order and did not condone the delay with supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order and properly addressed the delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Hearing: 14/06Pronounced: 14/06

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 2.7.2018 for the assessment

year 2012-13.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was

called for hearing. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal of

the assessee after hearing ld D.R.

P a g e 1 | 3

ITA No 57/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

3.

On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we find that the

CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee mainly on two

grounds i.e. the appeal was filed delay by 32 days and for non-

prosecution following the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of

CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del).

4.

The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) are mandatory and it is obligatory for Commissioner(Appeals) to pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and reasons for such decisions. The provisions of section 250(6) provides that the appellate order of Commissioner (A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decision. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Absence of the formulation of the point for decision for want of clarity in a decision undoubtedly puts a party in quandary. In the instant case, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal without considering the facts and grounds raised by the assessee following the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Multiplan (India)Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the CIT (A) has no power to dismiss the appeal and the reliance placed by the CIT (A) in the case of Multiplan (supra) is misconceived. In view of this and following the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd

P a g e 2 | 3

ITA No 57/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

(supra), we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the appeal to his file and direct him to dispose of the appeal of the assessee afresh with a speaking order after allowing proper opportunity in accordance with law. We also observe that the CIT(A) has not condone the delay in filing the appeal due to supporting evidence for not filing the appeal in time. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary evidence in support of the condonation of delay before the CIT(A).

5.

Since, we have remitted the matter to the file of the CIT(A), the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 14/06/2019. Sd/- sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 14 /06/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Shree Ganesh Rice Mills, Ramabilli, PO: Jankia, Khurda, Orissa

2.

The Respondent. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- 1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →