ANTHENA MULTITRADE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 3(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7590/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2021AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order did not meet the statutory requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it lacked the points for determination, decision, and reasons. The tribunal also considered the possibility of non-representation due to address confusion.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-representation. The assessee claimed this was due to a change of address and lack of proper communication. The ITAT noted a potential confusion in addresses.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory requirements. Whether the assessee's non-representation was due to a lack of proper communication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

Hearing: 17.08.2021Pronounced: 07.09.2021

Appellant By None Respondent by None (Application Rejected) Date of Hearing 17.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 07.09.2021 Hearing conducted via Webex ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 28.03.2018 of CIT(A)-7, New Delhi pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year.

The order is assailed on various grounds including ground No.2 which reads as under:

“2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned CIT(A) is bad both the eye of law and on facts as the same has been passed without having jurisdiction, the same has been passed without having jurisdiction, hence the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without providing an opportunity of being heard is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed.”

Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

2.

At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the parties. Sr. DR Mr. R.K. Gupta has sent an adjournment application in all the 35 cases listed for hearing today by stating that :

“I have to attend personal compelling circumstances today. Therefore, I am not able to attend today’s proceedings. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the case may kindly be adjourned to any convenient date. For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall be grateful.”

3.

The said request was rejected in the light of the factual matrix as available

on record in the context of the aforementioned ground. Similarly assessee's adjournment was also rejected considering the material on record.

4.

A perusal of the order shows that the additions made by the Assessing

Officer which were challenged in appeal before the CIT(A) were dismissed as the assessee remained unrepresented before the CIT(A). Relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP) among others, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte.

5.

Aggrieved by this, the appeal has been filed. Specific ground No. 2 is being

taken up for consideration.

6.

A perusal of para-4 of the impugned order shows that various opportunities

were given to the assessee, however, despite the same the assessee remain unrepresented. It is further seen that the address before the Assessing Officer was that ;

65, Bentinck Street, Asha Chamber, Room No.2C, Kolkata-700 001. Flat No.3C, 76/3, Chrisopher Road, Kolkata-700 046.

Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 6.1 The address mentioned in the impugned order, it is seen is shown to be as under :

M/s. Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.3C, 76/3, Chrisopher Road, Kolkata-700 046.

6.2 It is further seen that in the memo appeals filed before the ITAT the address for sending notices etc. has been shown as under:

D-13, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110 026. 6.3 Accordingly, it appears that lack of representation may have been on account of confusion/change of address etc. Notwithstanding this fact, even otherwise the order passed does not meet the statutory requirements as set out in sub section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The provision mandates that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority not only should be in writing but should also state the points for determination; the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. These requirements in the facts of the present case, it is seen are not met. The relevant provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of completeness :

Section 250 – Procedure in appeal. x x x x x x

(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.

Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 6.4 As noticed earlier, even otherwise the benefit of doubt can be given to the assessee for remaining unrepresented due to lack of communication arising on account of change of address etc.

7.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out hereinabove in the interests of substantial justice, the impugned order is set aside and remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07TH September, 2021.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →