FOCUS EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6360/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 November 2019AY 2002-033 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate appeals on merits, even if the assessee is absent. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence during the hearing, leading to the confirmation of a penalty. The assessee argued for an opportunity to present its case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Goyal, CA, Shri Rakesh Khetan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04/11/2019

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 6.10.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Delhi {CIT (A)} wherein the Ld. CIT (A) has upheld imposition of penalty of Rs. 19,83,555/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).

Focus Exports Private Ltd. vs ITO

2.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Ld. CIT (A) has upheld the imposition of penalty for the simple reason that the assessee was not present before him during the course of hearing. The Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal before him on the ground of non-prosecution of the appeal before him. The Ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee has prayed that opportunity should be given to the assessee to present its case before the Ld. CIT (A). However, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue has submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has mentioned in the impugned order that although three notices were sent to the assessee for the hearing by the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee chose not to be present. It has been submitted that the penalty has rightly been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A).

3.

Having heard both the parties and after going through the impugned order, it is apparent that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has not adjudicated the appeal before him on merits but has simply dismissed it for want of prosecution. It is settled law that the Ld. First Appellate Authority is bound to adjudicate the issues before him on merits even though the assessee may

Focus Exports Private Ltd. vs ITO not be present before him. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with direction to pass an order in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. 4. In the final result appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →