ANIL KHOSLA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 54(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6386/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 January 2021AY 2013-143 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 solely for non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting one last opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in transportation business, filed his return of income. The Assessing Officer made additions, increasing the total income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits. The requirement for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order deciding the appeal on merits.

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(2)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 “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K.PANDA

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 06.01.2021Pronounced: 18.01.2021

PER R.K.PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 19.06.2019 of CIT(A)-18, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice.

1.

Therefore, this appeal is being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld.Sr.DR.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of transportation through hiring of trucks. He filed his return of income on 25.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.8,34,850/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) on 21.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.25,17,080/- by making various additions/disallowances.

Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) despite service of notices, the CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(A), there was no appearance from the side of the assessee for which the CIT(A) was constrained to pass the ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the CIT(A) disposing the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit, which he is reqrued to do, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law by passing a speaking order.

The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and substantiate his case failing which the Ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th January, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →