CHIEF ENGINEER (CENTRAL ZONE),JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JABALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 157/JAB/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur04 April 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper opportunity for hearing and had not decided the appeal 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 after issuing only one notice, which the assessee disputed. The assessee also raised grounds regarding violation of natural justice and arbitrary levy of interest and late fees.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without proper notice and opportunity to be heard. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur, dated 27/6/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14, taking the following grounds:

1.

The learned C.I.T. (Appeal) has not appreciated that order has been pass by DCIT Circle 1(1) by violating rules of natural justice.

2.

The learned C.I.T. (Appeal) has not appreciated that no notice of hearing was received by the Applicant and decided the case ex party which is by violating rules of natural justice.

3.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) failed to appreciate the Application u/s 154 was dismissed on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.

ITA No.157/JAB/2018 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) failed to appreciate the demand of TDS as short paid, amount deducted and not paid and levy of Interest is arbitrary and unjustified.

5.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law in ignoring the CBDT Circular no 007 dt 14-03-2015 where it is directed that no late fee cannot levied to Government.

6.

The ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that levy of interest is unjustified.

2.

By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution. We take note that the ld. CIT(A) had issued only one notice, dated 11/6/2018, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee.

3.

Heard. I find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. The assessee has taken a specific ground with regard to non-service of notice on 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 incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them.

4.

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 ITA No.157/JAB/2018 ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/04/2019. [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

DATED:04/04/2019 JJ:0404

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →