PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NAVRATNA ORGANIZERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/1192/2018HC GujaratGJHC24056908201801 October 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the Revenue's grievance that the ITAT, while remanding the proceedings to the CIT(Appeals) due to an ex-parte order, did not impose any conditions or restrictions on the assessee to ensure seriousness. The Court opined that imposing a fair amount of cost could have instilled the required seriousness. However, the Court stated that solely for this reason, it was not inclined to entertain the appeal as it did not find any substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Court expressed hope that the ITAT would bear these observations in mind in future proceedings. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated March 28, 2018. The ITAT had remanded the proceedings back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that the appeal order was passed ex-parte. The Revenue's grievance is that the ITAT did not impose any conditions or restrictions on the assessee to ensure seriousness in the proceedings. The High Court, while acknowledging the potential justification for imposing costs, did not find a substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the proceedings to the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the appeal order was ex-parte, without imposing any conditions or costs on the assessee to ensure seriousness in the proceedings? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order remanding the case to the CIT(Appeals) was flawed because it did not impose any conditions or restrictions on the assessee, such as the imposition of costs, to ensure a serious approach to the assessment proceedings. The Revenue felt that the ITAT should have ensured a level of seriousness from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1192/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1192 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S NAVRATNA ORGANIZERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE with 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 : 01/10/2018

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

Revenue is in appeal against judgment of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.3.2018. Tribunal remanded the proceedings for consideration of CIT (Appeals) on the ground that the appeal order was exparte. Learned counsel for the appellant is justified in making a grievance that the Tribunal did not put some check or restriction on the assessee so that sense of seriousness is brought about in the proceedings. In our prima facie view, even if the Tribunal was inclined to grant opportunity

participate

the proceedings, at least imposition of fair Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/1192/2018 ORDER amount of cost could have been considered. This would bring in a level of seriousness required on the part of the assessee while facing assessment proceedings. However, only for such purpose, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, since otherwise we do not find any question of law arising. In future assure the Tribunal would bear in mind these observations.

Tax appeal is disposed of accordingly. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →