SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AGARWALA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

ITSSA 70/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 July 2023AY 2012-133 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders that dismissed the appeals. Crucially, the CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on their merits and had issued non-speaking orders. This was found to be impermissible under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) must be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Sushila Devi Agarwala, filed appeals against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2016-17. The appeals were preferred against the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without adjudicating the merits of the case. The revenue did not oppose this contention. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders dismissing the appeals. The CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on merits and had passed non-speaking orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits of the case and prayed for the appeals to be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative, while not leaving his grounds, did not oppose the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R

Hearing: 05/07/2023Pronounced: 25/07/2023

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड� फाई/ Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY

Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Kolkata

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →