What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, but with a cost imposed on the assessee for their conduct.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-appearance on multiple hearing dates. The assessee's AR could not provide a valid reason for this non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-appearance was justified, and if the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.

M/S. Dream Team Services… vs ITO | s.143(3) | ITAT Cuttack 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Jena, AR

For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Hearing: 17/05

1 ITA No .385/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.385/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-2014

M/s. Dream Team Services, Vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), At:Plot No.N5/538, 2nd floor, Bhubaneswar SBI Building, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAHFD 2165 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S.K.Jena, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Date of Hearing : 17/05/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /05/ 2018

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A)- 2, Bhubaneswar dated 16.6.2017 for the assessment year 2013-

14.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“ 1. For that the impugned order of assessment passed by the Ld. A.O u/s.143(3) of the Act, and the sole disallowance of interest on partner's capital amounting to Rs.19,67,876/- is incorrect application of law by the Ld. A.O, as such allowable as a deduction to the Appellant. Further in the subsequent years The Ld. A.O has taken a different view in allowing the same, hence the impugned assessment order suffers from lack of consistency therefore legally impermissible.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) while deciding the appeal has dismissed the appeal and confirmed such addition for one non-

2 ITA No .385/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 compliance by the Appellant, without even verify the facts and documents available on records. Therefore under such circumstances the orders in the forum below is liable to be set aside.

For that in the present case both the Ld. A.O as well as Ld. CIT(A) have not examine the documentary evidences presented by the appellant and without providing proper opportunity the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities below, therefore the orders suffer from non application of mind and violates rules of natural justice, hence impermissible under Law.

For that the appellant craves leave to urge any other grounds of appeal and to file written submission along with the relevant documents, if so arises at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

At the outset, ld A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the

appeal of the assessee as the assessee failed to put in appearance on the

dates fixed for hearing on 19.12.2016, 10.1.2017 and 17.5.2017 and

hence, prayed that the matter should be restored back to the file of the

CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeal of the assessee afresh.

On a query from the Bench as to why the assessee failed to put in

appearance before the CIT(A) on the dates fixed for hearing, ld A.R. only

submitted that he was not the counsel before the CIT(A). He could not

give any valid reason for failure on the part of the assessee to appear

before the CIT(A).

In he above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

considered view that in the interest of substantial justice, the matter

needs to be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) but with imposition of cost

on the assessee for his conduct before the CIT(A). We, therefore, direct

the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- on or before 31.5.2018.

The assessee is further directed to file copy of the challan of deposit of

3 ITA No .385/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 cost before the CIT(A) as an evidence in compliance of the order of this

Tribunal as well as to file copy of the same to the Tribunal. With these

directions, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the CIT(A)

for fresh adjudication.

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

purposes.

Order pronounced on 17 /05/2018. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 17 /05/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Dream Team Services, At:Plot No.N5/538, 2nd floor, SBI Building, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar 2. ITO, WARD 5(4), The Respondent. Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar BY ORDER, 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

M/S. DREAM TEAM SERVICES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), BHUBANESWAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments