M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3452/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 October 2020AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had legally sought an adjournment and the CIT(A) could not decide the appeal without proper adjudication. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for multiple assessment years. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits, solely based on a request for adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without adjudicating the appeals on merits, and if the assessee's request for adjournment was validly considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Hearing: 26.10.2020Pronounced: 29.10.2020

O R D E R PER BENCH: These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai dated 25.10.2019 & 28.10.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 and 2017-18. The assessee also filed an appeal against the order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] passed by the ld. CIT(A) – 2 for the assessment year 2017-18. In the grounds of all the appeals, besides challenging the grounds on merits, the assessee has mainly challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) by raising specific ground.

2.

All the appeals pertain to same assessee are being heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that just because the assessee has sought for adjournment, the ld. CIT(A) has come to a conclusion that the appeals filed by the assessee are liable to be dismissed either giving any final notice adjudicating the appeals on merits. Thus, the ld. Counsel prayed for remitting the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. DR dutifully supported the orders of authorities below.

4.

We have heard both the sides through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that it is not the case of the Department that the assessee has not responded to the hearing notice issued by the ld. CIT(A), but, the assessee has legally sought for adjournment. In fact, no authority can decide an appeal upon the grounds of appeal of the assessee without any supporting evidence, etc. In view of the above, the assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents with cogent evidence along with suitable explanation before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issues raised in the appeals of the assessee after affording an opportunity of being heard.

5.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 29th October, 2020 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →