What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 250(b) by not formulating points of dispute and recording reasons. The appeals were therefore set aside for re-adjudication.

The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without proper opportunity of hearing, despite multiple hearing dates being fixed. The CIT(A)'s order was brief and did not discuss all the issues raised.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly afforded an opportunity of hearing and adequately addressed the issues raised in the appeal before dismissing it ex-parte.

Shri Bharat Manubhai Shah vs DCIT | ITAT Ahmedabad 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Hearing: 11/04/2018Pronounced: 10/05/2018

PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the common order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.07.2016 passed for A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. In the first common grounds of appeal assessee has pleaded that his appeals are dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-party without giving proper opportunity of hearing.

With the assistance of Ld. Representative I have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that Ld. First Appellate Authority has fixed the hearing for 18.05.2016, 03/06/2016, 20/07/2016 and 27/07/2016. ITA No 2689 & 2690/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10

However according to the Ld. CIT(A) neither application for adjournment was received nor anybody attended. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeals ex-party. A perusal of the CIT(A) would reveal that though Ld. CIT(A) has issued notices fixing the appeals on four occasions but ultimately the order is very brief and without discussing all the issues taken in the appeals.

Sub(b) of section 250 contemplates that Ld. CIT(A) would formulate the points in dispute and thereafter records reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. The order of the CIT(A) would indicate that Ld. First Appellate Authority has not adhere to the above mandate and dismissed the appeals in summary manner. Therefore I allow both the appeals for statistical purpose, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) in both the years and restore all the issues to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority for re-adjudication.

Order pronounced in the Court on 10th May, 2018. (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 10/05/2018 आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

SHRI BHARAT MANUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments