BHAVAR SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on merit even in cases of non-representation. Since the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without adjudication on merit, the order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee claimed the notices were not received as they were sent to a native place where no one was available at the time.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) is justified in dismissing an appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merit, despite the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30/03/2017 passed by the learned CIT(Appeals)-I, Noida [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2009-10. 2. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that appeal has been decided ex-party without any adjudication on merit. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) issued two notices, within the period of a week, which could not be complied due to the reason that the address provided was of his native place and at that point of time, no one was available at his native place. He submitted that assessee has provided new address in the form No. 36 filed before the Tribunal. He, accordingly, submitted that the assessee is willing to pursue the appeal and it may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A).
3. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that in view of non-compliance of the notices issued, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal observing as under:
2. In this case notices fixing the date of hearing on 23.03.2017 and 29.03.2017 were sent to the appellant on the address given in appeal memo which were returned by the postal authorities with the remarks that “no such person hence returned
In view of the above no meaningful purpose is to be served by keeping the appeal pending. The impugned assessment order is therefore confirmed in view of non prosecution of the appeal by the appellant. The appeal of the appellant falls and is dismissed.”
In our opinion, in terms of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned order on merit even in the case of none representation by the assessee. Since this appeal has been dismissed ex-party without deciding the issue in dispute on merit, we feel it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 30/03/2017 and restore this appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a reasoned order on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both the assessee and the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th December, 2020.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
