SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(5), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 187/LKW/2019Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 April 2019AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, as the assessee reportedly did not appear for hearings. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case and that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and deciding the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI A.D JAIN

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar, FCA
For Respondent: Shri C.K. Singh, DR
Hearing: 26/04/2019Pronounced: 03/05/2019

This is assessee’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10, taking the following grounds:-

“1. Because the learned first appellate authority ought not to have dismissed the appeal of the assessee by inferring that the appellant has nothing to say in the matter of the appeal and the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the appeal. 2. Because the learned first appellate authority ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same without considering the issues in appeal on merits. 3. Because the learned first appellate authority ought to have considered that sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessee by the Id. Assessing Officer to

2 ITA No. 187/Lkw/2019

present the case of the assessee and to produce the documents relied upon by the appellant. 4. Because the learned assessing officer erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty of Rs.1,10,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Because the learned assessing officer erred in inferring that the assessee has concealed his particulars of income and hence liable for imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Because the learned assessing officer and the first appellate authority did not allow sufficient opportunity to the appellant for presenting its case.”

2.

By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution, observing that several opportunities have been allowed to the assessee, but no compliance has been made by the assessee. 3. I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. I noted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order as according to him, nobody has appeared on the date when the appeal was fixed for hearing before him. The order of the CIT(A) mentions dates of issuance of notices, but nothing with regard to service thereof on the assessee. I also noticed from the order of the CIT(A) that he has summarily decided the appeal of the assessee without giving any cogent reason and his order is non speaking order. Under these circumstances, I feel that one more opportunity should be given to the

3 ITA No. 187/Lkw/2019

assessee as ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits. The

provision of section 250 which deals with the procedure in appeal before

the ld. CIT(A), allows a right to an assessee to be heard at the time of

hearing of appeal. Even the natural justice demands that no appeal

should be disposed of without being heard the party or without giving

him the proper and sufficient opportunity. I, therefore, in the interest of

justice and fair play to both the parties, set aside the order of CIT(A) and

restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction that the

CIT(A) shall refix the said appeal and decide the appeal afresh after

giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The assessee is also directed to be present on the date of hearing fixed

by ld. CIT(A) and not to seek undue adjournment and co-operate with ld.

CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2019. Sd/- (A.D. Jain) Vice President Aks – Dtd. 03/05/2019

4 ITA No. 187/Lkw/2019

Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

By order

Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →