RAJASTHAN MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/120/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02068615202425 September 2024Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The appellant, Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur. The ITAT had dismissed the appellant's appeal ex parte. The appellant contended that the notice of hearing for 13.02.2024 was served on 12.02.2024, and a request for adjournment was made due to the non-availability of their Chartered Accountant. The respondent (Revenue) noted that the notice of hearing was served, but the appellant was neither represented nor had filed written arguments.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order of the ITAT, passed ex parte, was made without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The court noted that the notice of hearing for 13.02.2024 was served on 12.02.2024, and a request for adjournment was made. The court found that the ITAT's decision to proceed ex parte under these circumstances was not in line with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the matter back to the ITAT for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal before the High Court was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ITAT erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal ex parte without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing, contrary to the principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the notice of hearing for 13.02.2024 was served on 12.02.2024, leaving insufficient time for preparation. They requested an adjournment due to the unavailability of their Chartered Accountant, which was allegedly not granted. This led to an ex parte dismissal, violating their right to be heard. Revenue's Contention: The respondent contended that the notice of hearing was duly served. They noted that the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal or file written arguments, justifying the ex parte order.

Sections Cited

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:40880-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 120/2024 Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited, Registered Office At Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India, 302004 Having Its Pan No. Aafcr2824M, Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Prem Prakash Arya S/o Shri Matadeen Arya. ----Appellant Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur, Registered Office At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak, Adv. with Mr. Aditya Bohra, Adv., Ms. Ishita Rawat, Adv. & Mr. Kanishk Singhal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. with Mr. Palash Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 25/09/2024

1.

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) ex parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant.

2.

The contention raised is that the notice of the Tribunal fixing

the appeal for hearing on 13.02.2

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 →