M/S. KHAKHU ENTERPRISESS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 431/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 April 2022AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was considered cryptic, non-speaking, and non-reasoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) reproduced the AO's observations and drew adverse inferences due to the assessee's absence.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case. The validity of a non-speaking and non-reasoned order by the CIT(A).

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, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri SHAMIM YAHYA

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani
For Respondent: Ms. Usha Shrote
Hearing: 06.04.2022

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, dated 03.08.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14, wherein ld.CIT(A) has basically dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

2.

Upon hearing both the counsel and perused the records. I find that it is incumbent upon the ld.CIT(A) to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

3.

For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws.

i. CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra(HUF)(2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 ii. CIT vs. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC)

4.

In the present case apart from dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, the ld.CIT(A) has reproduced the AOs observation and again drew adverse inference for nobody appeared in appeal. The order of ld.CIT(A) is at best a cryptic non speaking and non-reasoned order liable to be set aside.

5.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I remit the issue raised in the appeal the file of the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

6.

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on 06 .04.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →