What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow due procedure by not adjudicating the issues on merit as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders.

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance. The assessee sought early hearing of their appeals before the ITAT, citing the dismissal for want of prosecution and the need for adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for want of prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merit. Whether the procedure followed by the CIT(A) was in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Punit Santkumar Maggu vs ITO | ITAT Surat 2018

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT–BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA.No.553 and 554/SRT/2018 �नधा�रण वष�/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Punit Santkumar Maggu Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(4) B-101, Mapple Leaf Apt., Surat. Nr. VR Mall Dumas Road, Surat. PAN : ACAPM 0822 E अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �� यथ�/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Prasantji Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 15/11/2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 16/11/2018 आदेश/O R D E R (ORAL) PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeals have been directed at the instances of the assessee against separate orders of ld.CIT(A) dated 24.5.2018 passed for the Asstt.Year 2013-14 on respective appeals of the assessee.

The assessee has moved an application for early bearing of these appeals. It is contended in the application that on account of non-appearance of assessee, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals for want of prosecution. Considering this smallness of the issue involved therein and non-adjudication of the issues on merit, we take up the appeals for out-of-turn hearing.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act contemplates that

ITA No.553 and 554/SRT/2018 2 the ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) shall frame the point in dispute, and thereafter record reasons in support of conclusions on those points. A perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that both the appeals have been disposed of for want of prosecution, because in spite of notices the assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A). A perusal of sub-section (6) of section 250 indicates that the ld.CIT(A) would be required to adjudicate the issue on merit after considering the statement of facts and assessment records. Thus, due procedure has not been adhere to, and therefore, we set aside both the orders, and remit all these issues in both appeal to the file of the ld.CIT(A). We direct the assessee to cooperate with ld.CIT(A) and not to delay the proceedings before him. Thus, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th November, 2018 at Surat.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

PUNIT SANTKUMAR MAGGU,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(4), SURAT

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