ARUMUGA NAINAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 254/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 October 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for default and is bound to decide it on merits, even if the assessee is absent. The dismissal for default by the CIT(A) was deemed bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee argued that the CIT(A), as a quasi-judicial authority, must decide appeals on merits, even in the absence of the assessee, and cannot dismiss them for default.

What were the issues?

Whether a CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default, or is obligated to decide it on merits?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 11.10.2021Pronounced: 11.10.2021

आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai in dated 25.10.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non- Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16 vide order dated 28.12.2017.

2.

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri N.V. Balaji took us through the order of CIT(A) dated 25.10.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16 and stated that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, 118 ITR 461 and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). The ld. counsel for the assessee 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. This view has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). Hence, the ld.counsel stated that this order CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. senior Departmental Representative stated that the matter was posted on number of times, as noted by the CIT(A), but there was no response from the assessee.

4.

After hearing both the sides, we are of the view 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. We further noted that, this view has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). Hence, dismissal for default by CIT(A) is bad in law and accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A). The appeal is remanded back CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th October, 2021 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →