PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT SYSCOM TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Court referred to a similar issue that had come up before it in Tax Appeal No. 1192 of 2018, which was also dismissed. In that previous case, the Tribunal had remanded the proceedings for consideration by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the appeal order was ex-parte. While the Court acknowledged the Revenue's grievance that the Tribunal did not impose any restrictions or costs on the assessee to ensure seriousness in proceedings, it stated that for this reason alone, it was not inclined to entertain the appeal. The Court found no question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated April 18, 2018. The ITAT had set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and directed a de novo adjudication. The Revenue's grievance stemmed from the CIT(A)'s alleged lack of material to proceed due to the assessee's total non-compliance, despite opportunities provided. The assessee is Gujarat Syscom Technologies (P) Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the Assessing Officer passing an order, the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passing an order based on the Assessing Officer's findings, and the ITAT setting aside the CIT(A)'s order for de novo adjudication.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate de novo without appreciating that due to total non-compliance by the assessee and despite sufficient opportunities, the CIT(A) had no material to proceed further and had to frame an order based on the Assessing Officer's findings? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication without considering whether there were justifiable grounds for the assessee's total non-compliance before the CIT(A)? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in setting aside the CIT(A)'s order for de novo adjudication. The Revenue contended that the assessee's total non-compliance, despite ample opportunities, left the CIT(A) with no alternative but to pass an order based on the Assessing Officer's findings. The Revenue also argued that the ITAT failed to consider whether the assessee had justifiable grounds for such non-compliance.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18.04.2018 raising following questions for our consideration: “A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate de novo without appreciating the fact that due to total non- compliance on the part of the assessee and despite providing sufficient opportunities, CIT(A) did not have any material to further dwelt upon the issue and had no choice but to frame an order based on the findings, given in the order passed by the Assessing Officer? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication without taking into consideration whether there were justifiable grounds for making total non-compliance by the assessee before CIT(A)?” C/TAXAP/1221/2018 ORDER
Similar issue came up before us in Tax Appeal No. 1192 of 2018. This Tax Appeal was dismissed by making following observations. “1. Revenue is in appeal against judgment of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.3.2018. Tribunal remanded the proceedings for consideration of CIT (Appeals) on the ground that the appeal order was exparte. Learned counsel for the appellant is justified in making a grievance that the Tribunal did not put some check or restriction on the assessee so that sense of seriousness is brought about in the proceedings. In our prima facie view, even if the Tribunal was inclined to grant opportunity to participate in the proceedings, at least imposition of fair amount of cost could have been considered. This would bring in a level of seriousness required on the part of the assessee while facing assessment proceedings. However, only for such purpose, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, since otherwise we do not find any question of law arising. In future assure the Tribunal would bear in mind these observations.”
In the result, this Tax Appeal is also dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
