Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘C’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘C’
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.146, 147 and 148/Ahd/2017 �नधा�रण वष�/Asstt. Year: 2007-08, 2010-11 and 2011-12 Nikhil Vinukant Shah Vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1) 25, R-B, Riddhi Apartment Ahmedabad. Opp: Mrudag Flats B/h. Mrudag Flats B/s.Vasana Bus Stand Vasna, Ahmedabad. PAN : ACIPS 6166 P
अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �त् यथ�/ (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Mehul Takera Revenue by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 17/09/2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/09/2018 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present three appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against separate orders of the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 15.11.2016 passed on the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2007-08, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.
One of the common issues agitated by the assessee in all these three years is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeals of the assessee by way of ex parte order. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that all the appeals of the assessee were listed before the ld.CIT(A) on seven occasion, but every time the assessee was
ITA No.146 and 148/Ahd/2017
represented by the authorized representatives and adjournments applications were moved. The ld.CIT(A) was kind enough to grant adjournments. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 8.11.2016 no one has appeared before the ld.CIT(A) because the ld.counsel for the assessee was out of station on account of Diwali occasion. The ld.CIT(A) concluded ex parte hearing on that date and dismissed all appeals without dealing issues specifically on merit. He prayed that orders of the ld.CIT(A) in all these three years be set aside and all the issues be restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld.DR contended that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee, but he failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A), and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly decided the appeals.
We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. We find that in para-2 of the impugned orders, the ld.CIT(A) has noticed the details of hearing and how the assessee has complied with the directions. No doubt the hearings in all these appeals were fixed on seven occasions. Out of seven occasions, the assessee appeared on six occasions, but hearing was adjourned. On the seventh occasion, no one could appear before the ld.CIT(A).
The ld.CIT(A) has concluded the hearing and dismissed the appeals by way of separate orders on 15.11.2016. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contemplates that the ld.CIT(A) would states the points in dispute and thereafter assign reasons in support of conclusions. On perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has simply concurred with the AO without formulating specific points and taking note of details available before the ld.CIT(A). In a way, the appeals were dismissed in summary
ITA No.146 and 148/Ahd/2017
manner. This exercise of power at the end of the ld.CIT(A) is not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, therefore, we set aside all these orders and restore all the issues in these three assessment years to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for deciding them on merit. We further direct the assessee to cooperate with the ld.CIT(A) and refrain himself from seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 17th September, 2018 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER