RADHA KRISHNA,HAMEERPUR vs. I T OFFICER-5(5), BANDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 136/ALLD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad15 November 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee disputed the service of hearing notices by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly afforded an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, and whether the appeal should have been decided on merits.

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, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur, dated 28/12/2017 for assessment year 2013- 14. 2. In this case, an application dated 12/11/2019 has been moved on behalf of the assessee for adjournment to some other date, preferably after 15 days. Since there was no justifiable reason for adjournment and also considering the fact that there is no regular functioning of the Bench in Allahabad, we reject the application for adjournment and proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. and after considering the material placed on record. The matter, we find, can be proceeded with in the absence of the assessee. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution, observing that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. The

ITA No.136/ALLD/2018 Page 2 of 3

ld. CIT(A) has recorded certain dates of hearing in his order, but it is not clear from his order whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee. 4. Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As such, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 5. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/11/2019.

Sd/- Sd/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:19/11/2019 JJ:1811

ITA No.136/ALLD/2018 Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →