RATHI SUPER STEEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7605/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 December 2019AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm. The CIT(A) must pass a reasoned order after affording reasonable opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were decided ex-parte without considering the merits of the additions. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeals ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

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

Before: MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA & Sh. N.K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 19.12.2019Pronounced: 20.12.2019

आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: These two appeals filed by assessee are against order of CIT(A)-38, New Delhi, dated 18/09/2017 and 26/10/2017 relating to assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15.

1.

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

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.

The learned AR for the assessee pointed out 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 the rival contentions 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 these appeals after hearing the parties and state the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision. While deciding the appeals, CIT(A) has no power to dismiss these appeals 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 these appeals 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 these appeals, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals ex-parte qua the assessee and had failed to decide the appeals by passing reasoned assessment order.

6.

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. These appeals are thus decided on this preliminary issue without going into the merits of the addition.

7.

Hence, both appeals are 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 these appeals is thus decided in favour of assessee. Since these appeals are being decided on the preliminary issue, we are not addressing the issue raised on merit.

8.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th day of December, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →