LATE YAGASANAN REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HIERS Y.GAJALAKSHMI,REVATHI,YASHWIN,PATTAMMAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-12(5), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2683/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 April 2022AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order without adjudication is not maintainable. The CIT(A) is obligated to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. The assessee argued that a quasi-judicial authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default but must decide it on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for default without deciding the merits, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 28.04.2022Pronounced: 28.04.2022

O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in 2010-11/CIT(A)-13 dated 05.07.2019. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-12(5), Chennai u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 29.12.2017.

1.

2 2. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee Shri Y. Sridhar took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee practically ex-parte and without adjudicating the issue on merits. The ld. AR stated that the CIT(A) is a quasi judicial authority and in the statute of Income Tax Act, CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication, but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits. The appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default but he is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee. Hence, the ld.AR stated that this order should be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

The ld. Senior DR opposed to setting aside of the order of CIT(A) because the CIT(A) has given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly and practically, the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and there is no adjudication of issue at all. We are of the view that unless the statute authorizes a quasi judicial authority to dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable

3 implication, the appellate authority has to decide the appeal and not to dismiss it for default. Probably, appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits by a speaking order. Where an appeal has been disposed off ex-parte and without adjudicating the issue, ex- parte order is not maintainable. Hence, the order passed by the CIT(A) is not maintainable and accordingly the same is reversed. However, the order of CIT(A) is set aside but matter is remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th April, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →