Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA & SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 381/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13
Allied Builders, Lasjan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Srinagar Ward 3(1), Srinagar
[PAN: AAOFA 8580D] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 09.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2018
ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 30.03.2017, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 18.03.2015 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
At the outset, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), Shri Malik Mukhtar Ahmad, Advocate, that the non-appearance before the first appellate authority, as noted by him at para 3 of his order, making it a ground for dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine, was on account of curfew in Srinagar -
2 ITA No. 381 (Asr)/2017(AY 2012-13) Allied Builders v. ITO where the assessee is based, which prevailed for most part of the 2016, i.e., involuntary. Even if ex-parte, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the assessee’s appeal on merits, rather than per a non-speaking order. The matter, it was accordingly prayed, be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, in which proceedings the assessee undertakes to participate. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to any of the assertions, as well as the prayer by the ld. AR.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. In our clear view, the assessee, even if prevented by sufficient cause in prosecuting its’ appeal, ought to have applied for adjournment, even if per post, delineating the facts and circumstances for its non-appearance – which was repeated, and which we are sure would have been appreciated by the ld. CIT(A). He, even if presumed to be aware of the ground situation at Srinagar at the relevant time, has, in our view, in the absence of any adjournment motion made, been fair in allowing as many as eight opportunities to the assessee to present its’ case, of which four – evenly spread, fall during the year 2017. At the same time, however, in our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has transcended his mandate by dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine. Section 250(6) requires of him to pass an order on merits, communicating the reasons that inform the same. Under the circumstances, we only consider it fit and proper to, setting aside the impugned order, remit the appeal back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits, issuing definite findings of fact, and after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We decide accordingly.
3 ITA No. 381 (Asr)/2017(AY 2012-13) Allied Builders v. ITO 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on April 12, 2018
Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Choudhry) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 12.04.2018 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: Allied Builders, Lasjan, Srinagar (2) The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Srinagar, J&K (3) The CIT(Appeals), Jammu (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T