ASHOK ARJANDAS MAKHIJANI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/504/2018HC GujaratGJHC24021254201813 June 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the representation made by the assessee's counsel regarding the appellant's first-time absence and not being a chronic defaulter, was inclined to grant a last opportunity to the appellant to appear and argue their case before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court set aside the impugned ex parte order dated September 27, 2017, passed by the ITAT, and restored the appeal before the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. The appellant was directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the Income-tax authorities. The Tax Appeal was disposed of accordingly. No specific finding was made on the merits of the penalty order itself.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashok Arjundas Makhijani, challenged a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was scheduled for hearing on September 22, 2017. On that date, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the ITAT, and no adjournment application was filed. Consequently, the ITAT proceeded ex parte and dismissed the appeal through a detailed order dated September 27, 2017. The assessee's counsel submitted that this was the first instance of absence before the ITAT and that the assessee was not a chronic defaulter. The High Court considered the representation made.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should set aside the ex parte order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non-appearance of the appellant and their representative, and restore the appeal for fresh hearing, considering the appellant's submission that it was a first-time absence and not a case of chronic default. Assessee's Contentions: The appellant's counsel argued that the assessee had engaged a Chartered Accountant and conveyed the hearing date. The absence was unfortunate and a first instance. The appellant was not a chronic defaulter. The counsel requested a last opportunity to argue the case before the Tribunal. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/504/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 504 of 2018 ============================================================= ASHOK ARJUNDAS MAKHIJANI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ============================================================= Appearance : Mr TEJ SHAH, Advocate for the PETITIONER Mr VARUN K PATEL, Advocate for the RESPONDENT ============================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA 13th June 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Considering the nature of issue, let there be a notice for final disposal, returnable today itself. Learned advocate Mr. Varun K Patel, who is a panel counsel for the Income-tax Department and represents Baroda Circle, appears at our request on advance copy. Appellant had challenged penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT [A]. Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, hearing of the appeal was fixed on 22nd September 2017. The record shows that on such date, neither the appellant nor his representative appeared before the Tribunal, nor any application for adjournment was filed. The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded ex parte and by a detailed order, dismissed the appeal. Page 1 of 2

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had engaged a Chartered Accountant to represent him and also conveyed the date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal to his legal representative. Unfortunately, he could not appear which led to appeal being heard ex parte. Counsel submitted that this is the first instance where the appellant had remained absent before the Tribunal and this is not a case where the appellant was a chronic defaulter.

Considering the representation made before us, we are inclined to give last opportunity to the appellant to appear and argue his case before the Tribunal. For such purpose, we set-aside the impugned order dated 27th September 2017 and restore the appeal before the Tribunal, for disposal in accordance with law.

The appellant shall deposit cost of Rs. 5,000/= with the Income-tax authorities.

Tax Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. [Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.] Prakash

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →