M/S. GULATI (INDIA) SALES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 636/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 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 on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without considering the merits of the addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether the assessment order passed ex-parte is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 144

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 ‘C’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: DR सुनवाई की तारीख /
Hearing: 18.12.2019Pronounced: 18.12.2019

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

1.

The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 25.11.2016 passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2012-13.

आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No:- 636/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 अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No:- 636/Del/2017 and had failed to decide the appeal by passing reasoned assessment order.

6.

On the perusal of record, we further find that the assessment order has also been passed ex parte qua the assessee under section 144 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the matter back to the file of AO to decide the issue on merits, in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further the assessee is also directed to appear before the AO and participate in the assessment proceedings. The appeal is thus decided on this preliminary issue only and we are not going into the merits of the addition. Hence the appeal is allowed.

7.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →