PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 vs. PASAND EXPORTS P. LTD.

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/1162/2018HC GujaratGJHC24056192201824 September 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had placed the matter back before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh disposal in accordance with law, drawing a conclusion that the non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the assessee's compliance or non-compliance, nor did it re-examine the ITAT's finding on the intent behind the non-appearance. The operative direction was to dismiss the Tax Appeal. The ratio decidendi is that if the Tribunal, in its appellate jurisdiction, finds that an assessee's non-appearance was not intentional or deliberate, and remands the matter for fresh adjudication, such an order may not give rise to a substantial question of law for further appeal to the High Court, especially if the ITAT's order is based on its factual appreciation of the circumstances.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, is in appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated March 23, 2018. The ITAT had set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal. The ITAT's decision was based on its finding that the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court challenges this decision of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee had filed written submission along with an adjournment application, and therefore, the non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the matter to the CIT(A) without appreciating that despite several opportunities granted by the CIT(A), the assessee filed written submissions only once, and the CIT(A) had passed a comprehensive order based on those submissions, not an ex-parte order? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication without considering whether there were justifiable grounds for the consistent non-compliance by the assessee before the CIT(A) and even before the Appellate Tribunal? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Argued that the ITAT erred in setting aside the CIT(A)'s order based on the assessee's written submissions and adjournment application, and that the CIT(A) had passed a comprehensive order after considering the submissions, not an ex-parte one. The Revenue also contended that the ITAT failed to consider the assessee's consistent non-compliance before the CIT(A) and the ITAT itself.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/1162/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1162 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 Versus PASAND EXPORTS P. LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 24/09/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 23.03.2018 raising following questions for our consideration: “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee had filed written submission along with adjournment application and therefore it was neither intentional nor deliberate ? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the matter to CIT(A) without appreciating the fact that despite several opportunities granted by the CIT(A) the assessee had filed written submission only once and that the CIT(A) had passed a comprehensive order based on the submission filed by the assessee and not an “exparte” order as such? [C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in C/TAXAP/1162/2018 ORDER setting aside the the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication without taking into consideration as to whether there were justifiable grounds for consistent non compliance by the assessee before the CIT(A)& even before Appellate Tribunal?”

Perusal of the orders on record and in particular, the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we notice that what the Tribunal has done is to place the matter back before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh disposal and in accordance with law by drawing a

conclusion that nonappearance of the assessee before the Commissioner was neither intentional nor deliberate.

No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →