Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN
O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey (JM) –
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 17-06-2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai for the assessment year 2013- 14. 2. The basic grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against ex parte disposal of its appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals), that too, without deciding the issues on merits.
Briefly the facts are, the assessee, a resident company, is engaged in the business of civil contractor. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 24-09-2013 declaring total income at Rs.1,76,76,962/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30-12-2015 determining the total income at Rs.1,95,18,433/- after making certain additions. Against assessment order so passed, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. However, by the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.
We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen from the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was fixed for hearing before learned Commissioner (Appeals) on a couple of occasions and on both the occasions, the authorized representative of the assessee sought adjournment. Considering the above, learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the assessee was not serious in prosecuting its appeal and accordingly proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte. However, while doing so, manifestly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issues raised in the appeal on merits, but, has simply dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-appearance of the assessee. This, in our view, is not in accordance with the mandate of section 251 of the Act. Furthermore, the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is in gross violation of rules of natural justice, as, he has not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to his file for fresh adjudication, after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We must observe, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the appeal has to decide all the issues raised by the assessee on merits with a speaking order. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11/03/2021. Sd/- sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 11/03/2021 Pavanan Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT concerned 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File By Order