THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. GURDEEP SINGH MANGAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/46/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01001823202328 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT's order dismissing the assessee's appeal on technicalities without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify procedural shortcomings was not appropriate. The Court observed that the ITAT should have confronted the assessee with the procedural shortcomings before passing the order. Consequently, the ITAT was directed to address the preliminary objection by way of a speaking order and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the merits of the appeal, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The operative direction was to the ITAT to re-adjudicate the assessee's appeal on merits after providing a hearing.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the assessee's appeal on technicalities, specifically for not filing the appeal electronically. The High Court noted that the ITAT found the assessee's appeal had technical shortcomings. The ITAT's order, dated 08.03.2021, was challenged. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court was filed with a delay of 311 days, which the High Court condoned. The High Court observed that the ITAT should have confronted the assessee with procedural shortcomings before passing the dismissal order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT order dismissing the assessee's appeal on technical grounds, without affording an opportunity to rectify procedural shortcomings, is sustainable in law? 2. Whether the ITAT's dismissal order was speaking/reasoned? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the ITAT's reasoning, as quoted in the judgment, suggests that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to address procedural shortcomings. The High Court's order implies that the ITAT should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal on technicalities. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order. The High Court's decision to condone the delay and direct the ITAT to pass a speaking order suggests that the Revenue's appeal was considered on its merits regarding the procedural fairness of the ITAT's order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-46-2023 (O 108

IN TH THE COMMI GURDEEP SI CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

CM-2576-CII-

A appeal is allow Main case 1. This is by Inco Tribuna technic 2. The ITA m C a O&M)

Page 1 of 2 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Vs.

INGH MANGAT **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standi for the appellant. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) -2023 Application for condonation of wed and accordingly delay is con an appeal preferred against the ome Tax Appellate Tribunal (IT al found that the assessee’s a calities as he had not filed his app AT has passed the following ord “6. In the facts of the prese material available on record, I a CIT(A) would have been well a assessee with procedural shortco AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-46-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.08.2024 NEW DELHI . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ing Counsel ) delay of 311 days in filing of ndoned. e order dated 08.03.2021 passed TAT), Chandigarh whereby the appeal had been dismissed on peal electronically. der: ent case, considering the am of the view that the advised to confront the omings noticed, if any,

) 4

t s f d e n MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.29 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-46-2023 (O b c p th th r p p 3. We do There b dismiss 4. All pen

August 28, 202 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe O&M)

Page 2 of 2 before the passing of the order. Acc circumstances, the CIT(A) is direc preliminary objection by way of hereafter pass a speaking order in he merits of the appeal after reasonable opportunity of being pronounced at the time of virtua presence of the parties via Webex.”

not find any question of law r being no substantial question of sed. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 24 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y cordingly, in the peculiar cted to first address the f a speaking order and accordance with law on giving the assessee a heard. Said order was al hearing itself in the ” required to be examined by us. f law, the appeal is accordingly posed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

. y MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.29 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →