PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. MAINAK COMTRADE PVT. LTD.

TAXAP/272/2019HC GujaratGJHC24036456201915 July 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. RAO2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

This Tax Appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, dated December 21, 2018, concerning assessment year 2012-13. The ITAT had set aside an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The ITAT noted that hearing notices were sent to an address different from the one provided in Form No. 35, which prevented the assessee from complying with the notices. The Revenue's representative before the ITAT had agreed to this course of action. The High Court, in its order dated July 15, 2019, found no reason to disturb the ITAT's order.

Held

The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in setting aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The reasoning was based on the fact that the hearing notices were sent to an incorrect address, which prevented the assessee from appearing before the CIT(A) and presenting their case. The Tribunal's observation that both learned representatives fairly agreed to this course of action was also a significant factor. The High Court found no reason to disturb the ITAT's order, which was essentially a procedural direction to ensure a fair hearing. The operative direction was to remit the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitting the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, considering that hearing notices were sent to an incorrect address, preventing the assessee from appearing. Assessee's Contention: The assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) because the hearing notices were dispatched to an address other than the one registered in Form No. 35, leading to an ex-parte order against them. Therefore, the matter should be remanded for a decision on merits. Revenue's Contention: The departmental representative before the ITAT agreed to the suggestion of recalling the ex-parte order and remitting the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The High Court noted this agreement.

Sections Cited

260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/272/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 272 of 2019 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 Versus MAINAK COMTRADE PVT. LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 15/07/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1 This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 (for short, “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against   the   order   passed   by   the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 21st  December 2018 in the ITA No.2215/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2012­13. 2 The Tribunal, in its impugned order, has observed as under:

“3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the hearing notices issued in this case were sent on the address

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →