What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering it in the interest of substantial justice. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance on two hearing dates. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite being granted two opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to the assessee's non-compliance, and whether a further opportunity should be granted.

Patel Minerals, West Singhbhum vs ITO | ITAT Ranchi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

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

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Paul, CA, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Inderjit singh, CIT(DR)

Hearing: 27/11Pronounced: 28/11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

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

ITA No.79/Ran/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

Patel Minerals New Colony, Vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Chaibasa Nimdih, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum PAN/GIR No.AAJFP 7234 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri P.S.Paul, CA, Adv Revenue by : Shri Inderjit singh, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing : 27/11/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28/11/ 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), Jamshedpur dated 16.1.2017 for the assessment year

2013-14.

In Ground No.1 of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is

that the CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal due to

non-compliance on the date of hearing on 29.11.2016 and on

16.1.2017.

On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we observe that the

CIT(A) has allowed two opportunities of hearing to the assessee

P a g e 1 | 3

ITA No 79/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year :20 13- 14

and the assessee did not appear before him. Therefore, the

CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse.

Before us, ld Authorised Representative has prayed that one

more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to put

appearance before him.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the

interest of substantial justice, we consider it just and fair to

restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with imposition of cost

on the assessee. We, therefore, direct the assessee to deposit a

cost of Rs.5,000/- on or before 31.12.2018. The assessee is

further directed to file copy of the challan of deposit of 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 28 /11/2018. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 28 /11/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS P a g e 2 | 3

ITA No 79/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year :20 13- 14

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Patel Minerals New Colony, Nimdih, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum

The Respondent. ITO, Ward 3(4), Chaibasa 3. The CIT(A)- Jamshedpur 4. Pr.CIT- Jamshedpur 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy// Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour

P a g e 3 | 3

PATEL MINERALS,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ITO WARD-3(4), CHAIBASA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments