MARATHON MONEY MARKET LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3677/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 March 2020AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) can proceed ex-parte, the order must be disposed of on merits with reasons. Since the impugned order lacked reasons and did not address the merits, it was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as no one appeared for the assessee. The assessee contended that their counsel had appeared on the previous date, but it was not recorded. The Revenue conceded to giving the assessee another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case and without providing reasons is sustainable in law.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY

For Appellant: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. D.R
For Respondent: Shri Amil Jain, FCD, Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 06.03.2020Pronounced: 06.03.2019

PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 37, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.

2.

At the outset, it is brought our notice that the Learned AR with the impugned order was passed by the Learned CIT(A) ex-parte without referring to the merits of the case by noting that none was present for the assessee. The Learned AR submitted that as a matter of fact on the last date of hearing the Counsel appeared but either by mistake or erroneously the presence of the advocate is not noted. He submitted that there is no register maintained by the authorities where the Counsel could mark their appearance.

3.

Per contra, the Learned DR submitted that the submissions made by the Learned AR are not reflected on the face of the record, and the impugned order shows that in spite of several opportunities there was no cooperation from the assessee. Learned DR, however, fairly conceded that since the endeavor of the department is to assess the just tax liability of the assessee, and therefore,he has no objection to give an opportunity to the assessee. 4. We have gone through the records in the light of the submissions made on the either side. From the impugned order it could be seen that the Learned CIT(A) noted several dates of hearing fixed in this appeal, and noting that there was no corporation from the assessee,he observed that the irreducible conclusion would be that the assessee lost interest in this matter. 5. Be that as it may, even in the absence of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) is free to proceed with the matter, but the requirement of the law is that the appeal should be disposed of on merits instead of dismissing it in lumine. Nothing prevents the Ld. CIT(A) from adverting to the merits of the case as could be culled out from the record and reach a reasonable conclusion by assigning reasons.For want of reasons,we are unable to assess the merits of case. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal afresh in accordance with law, but on merits. Needless to say, that the Ld. CIT(A) would afford an opportunity to the assessee before passing the order. We make it clear that it does not mean that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot proceed ex-parte. What all we say is that the disposal order shall contain the reasons for conclusions.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06 March, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →