What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution if there was a reasonable cause for adjournment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee had sought an adjournment to file written submissions, which was refused by the CIT(A) due to previous adjournments.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without granting sufficient opportunity and whether the CIT(A) has the power to dismiss an appeal ex-parte.

K.Ramchander, Hyderabad vs ITO | ITAT Hyderabad 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur RahmanShri K. Ramchander

Hearing: 23.10.2018Pronounced: 31.10.2018

Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.

This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10 against the order of the CIT (A)-6, Hyderabad, dated 19.03.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. I Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal of the Appellant is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable on facts and in law, apart from being passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee in spite of filing adjournment petition by the counsel. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that on 16.03.2018 the counsel filed adjournment petition along with Vakalatnama and entered appearance for the first time in the appeal proceedings.

Page 1 of 3

ITA No 1206 of 2018 K Ramchander Hyderabad.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) having accepted the petition for adjournment dated 16.03.2018 should not have dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have given one more opportunity to the assessee. 4. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that he is not vested with power under the LT. Act to dismiss an appeal exparte. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have decided the appeal based on records. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.

Upon hearing both the parties and on perusal of the CIT (A)’s order, we find that on the last date of hearing which was fixed on 16.03.2018, the assessee had filed a letter seeking adjournment for a period of three weeks to file the written submissions, but the CIT (A) had refused to grant adjournment on the ground that no useful purpose would be served on adjourning the case since the assessee had been seeking adjournment on earlier occasions also. The CIT (A), therefore, dismissed the appeal for want of non-prosecution by the assessee and has not decided the appeal on merits. As long as the assessee had reasonable cause for seeking adjournment, the CIT (A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, but ought to have decided the appeal on merits. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT (A) and direct the CIT (A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing.

Page 2 of 3

ITA No 1206 of 2018 K Ramchander Hyderabad.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st October, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.Rifaur Rahman) (P. Madhavi Devi) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Hyderabad, dated 31st October, 2018. Vinodan/sps

Copy to:

1 Shri K.Ramchander C/o K.Vasantkumar, A.V.Raghuram & P Vinod Advocates, 610 Babukhan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-1 2 ITO Ward 6(4) IT Towers, Masabtank, Hyderabad 3 CIT (A)-6 Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT – 6 Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File

By Order

Page 3 of 3

K.RAMCHANDER,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments