JUBILANT INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5849/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 January 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution despite adjournment requests. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee claimed to have filed adjournment letters on both hearing dates before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without deciding the appeals on merits when adjournment was sought by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the above named assessees against the separate impugned order of even date 31.08.2016, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in all these appeals, the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits despite that assessee had filed adjournment letter before the Ld. CIT (A) on both dates, i.e., on 2nd May, 2016 and on 16th May, 2016, copy of which has been placed in the paper book at pages 41 and 42. He further submitted that the issues involved by and large covered by the decision of earlier orders. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits, therefore, he prayed that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided a fresh.

3.

Ld. DR too admitted that matter can be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to be decided on merits.

4.

After considering the impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution despite the fact that on the dates fixed by the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee has sought for adjournment. Accordingly, issues raised before us in the grounds of appeal is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who shall decide the issue on merits after giving due and effective opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →