SR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,INDORE vs. THE ITO-1(2), INDORE, INDORE

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3), Section 250(6), Section 254

ITA 648/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 March 2025AY 2006-073 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 impugned first appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) deserved to be set aside. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution but had failed to comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the order to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation in the hearings and not seek unnecessary adjournments, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, SR Builders and Developers, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This first appellate order arose from an assessment order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the ACIT-3(1), Indore, under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-prosecution. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the order to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The assessee sought a remand to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is in compliance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order shall be in writing and state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reason for the decision? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act by dismissing the appeal due to non-prosecution without stating the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. The assessee prayed for the matter to be remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication and expressed readiness to make a representation if given an opportunity. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's representative agreed with the assessee's prayer for remand but requested that the assessee be directed to represent their case before the CIT(A) and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 17.03.2025Pronounced: 18.03.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 02.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 20.03.2013 passed by learned ACIT-3(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2006-07, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. We observe that in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6).

Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for restoring to him for a proper adjudication. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication in terms of section 250(6).

Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an apt order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 18/03/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →