SHRI ASHISH KUMAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 488/LKW/2018Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 July 2019AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding 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 notices were served via email. The assessee contended that proper notice and opportunity to be heard were not provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

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

For Respondent: Shri C.K. Singh, DR
Hearing: 19/07/2019Pronounced: 19/07/2019

PER: A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT:

This is assessee’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2015-16, taking the following grounds:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided the appeal without proper service of the notice on the assessee is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. 2. Because the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has not appreciated the facts that the appellant is and Employee of SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., Delhi and his maximum period is passed in sea-water and without proper service of the notice for hearing and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard the deciding the appeal exparte is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. 3. Because the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer both have erred in taken the cost of purchase

2 ITA No. 488/Lkw/2018

amounting to Rs.1,53,07,120/- as income of the assessee for the year without verifying the record. 4. Because the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer both have erred in taken the cost of purchase amounting to 1,53,07,120/- as income of the assessee for the year without verifying the record. 5. Because the addition of purchased cost of share amounting to Rs. 1,53,07,120/- is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. 6. Because the payment of credit card made to the Bank through banking channel has taken as income of the assessee without considering the facts and the statement of Bank Account. 7. Because the interest on S.B. Account amounting to Rs.6,462/- has been dis-allowed without considering that it is allowable deduction u/s 80 TTA.. 8. Because the authorities below have not appreciated the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the assessee as a deduction under the head property income which is allowing as a revenue expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961. 9. Because the authorities below have not gone through the record properly and without proper verification of the record decided the appeal inhast. 10. Because no addition and dis-allowances should have been made.”

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issuance of notice through RPAD, which has not returned unserved. However, we find that this appeal can be disposed of in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, we are proceeding to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. and after considering the material placed on record.

3.

By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution, observing that notices dated 19.02.2018 and 13.03.2018 for compliance on 12.03.2018 and 22.03.2018 were served on the e-mail address submitted by the assessee while e-filing the appeal; that however, no written submission or paper book had been filed in support of any of the grounds of appeal taken.

3 ITA No. 488/Lkw/2018

4.

Heard. We 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. 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 ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 5. 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 ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as

allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19/07/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (T.S. Kapoor) (A.D. Jain) Accountant Member Vice President Aks – Dtd. 19/07/2019 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

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →