M/S. JAGDISH & CO.,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, ANAND

ITA 1633/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 April 2018AY 2010-112 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the issues. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for want of prosecution. The CIT(A) had issued notices, and while the assessee initially complied and later sought adjournment, they ultimately failed to appear for a hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without properly adjudicating the issues as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 09/04/2018Pronounced: 10/04/2018

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the learned CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 16.01.2014 passed for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. In the first ground of appeal the assessee has pleaded that the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex- parte.

With the assistance of the learned representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out that learned First Appellate Authority has issued notice of hearing on 20.05.2013 which remained un-complied with. In response to the next notice of hearing, assessee filed an adjournment application and hearing was accordingly adjourned. Thereafter, on next notice, assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and the learned First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

SMC-ITA No.1633/Ahd/2014 Jagdish & Co Vs. ITO For AY: 2010-11 2

Sub-section (6) of section 250 contemplates that the learned First Appellate Authority would prepare the statement of facts pointing out the issues in dispute and thereafter record his reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. By dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, the learned First Appellate Authority has failed to adhere to the mandatory provision; therefore, his order is not sustainable. I accordingly set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restore all issues raised in this appeal to the file of learned First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 10th April, 2018 at Ahmedabad. (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 10/04/2018 Biju T., Sr.PS 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) 5. &वभागीय ""त"न!ध, आयकर अपील"य अ!धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER,उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →