VEERA VENKATA LAKSHMI MEKALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 320/HYD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 September 2022AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the facts and decided the appeal on merits, rather than dismissing it ex-parte. Technicalities should not impede substantial justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) should have decided the matter on merits even in their absence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case, and if an opportunity for a fresh hearing should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, AR
For Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, DR
Hearing: 22/09/2022

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 28/06/2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Veera Venkata Lakshmi Mekala (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

At the outset, it is the submission on behalf of the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) disposed-of the appeal ex-parte observing that various notices dated 23/12/2020, 23/05/2022, 10/06/2022 and 21/06/2022 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) were issued through ITBA portal to the assessee but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee make any written submissions but only furnished the copy of the assessment order, grounds of appeal and statement of facts in Form No.35. Learned AR submitted that even otherwise also the Ld. CIT(A) could have referred to the facts and dispose- of the matter on merits so as to have effective assistance to the higher appellate forums. Learned AR submits that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to effectively prosecute her appeal, by restoring the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

1.

3. Though the learned DR vehemently oppose the request of the assessee, the facts remains that the Ld. CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeal on merits. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the Ld. CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the highest that would happen by affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute her appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by submitting the evidences, is that a cause could be decided on merits. When the technicalities are pitted against the delivery of substantial justice, the former must give way to the later. With this view of the matter, while setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), we direct the assessee to co-operate with the first appellate authority in getting the matters disposed of on merits without seeking any adjournments and the Ld. CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. We order accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →