KALYANI ENGINEERING WORKS,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7089/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2019AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without deciding on merits. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be infirm.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing or considering the merits of the case. The dismissal was primarily due to the assessee filing the appeal manually instead of electronically.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. Whether manual filing of appeal is a valid ground for dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: DR सुनवाई क तारख /
Hearing: 17.12.2019Pronounced: 18.12.2019

आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

1.

The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 29.09.2017 relating to assessment year 2013- 14.

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No:- 7089/Del/2017

2.

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee and without going into the merits of the addition.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and we find that the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order without allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without going into the merits of the case.

4.

The learned DR for the Revenue on the other hand pointed out that sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the assessee.

5.

We have heard Ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the record.

Under the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”), it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide the appeal after hearing the parties and state the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision. While deciding the appeal, CIT(A) has no power to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution by relying on the ratio/s laid down in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another 118 ITR 461 (SC) and Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). In these facts and circumstances, where the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by applying the above said ratios, the order of the learned CIT(A) suffers from infirmity. The CIT(A) while deciding the issue on merits have also to give reasons for coming to the conclusion and in the absence of the same, the order of the CIT(A) again suffers from infirmity. In the present appeal, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No:- 7089/Del/2017 and had failed to decide the appeal by passing reasoned assessment order.

6.

The present appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in limine, on the ground that the assessee had only filed the memo of appeal manually and not electronically. We find that no reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the assessee in this regard, accordingly we remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) with directions to allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the appeal before the CIT(A) electronically. The assessee is also directed to comply with our directions. The CIT(A) shall decide the merits of the issue raised in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.

7.

Accordingly, we set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits by a reasoned order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Further the assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and participate in the appellate proceedings. The appeal is thus decided on this preliminary issue without going into the merits of the addition.

8.

Hence this appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A). The preliminary issue raised in this appeal is thus decided in आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No:- 7089/Del/2017 favour of assessee. Since the appeal is being decided on the preliminary issue, we are not addressing the issue raised on merit.

9.

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.K.PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सदःय लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय �याियक सदःय �याियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER �याियक सदःय �द�ली / �दनांक Dated : 18th December, 2019. �द�ली �द�ली �द�ली SH आदेश क� ूितिल�प अमे�षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ू�यथ� / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. मु�य आयकर आयु� / The Pr. CIT 5. �वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, �द�ली / DR, ITAT, Delhi 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →