M/S MOHAN BROTHERS (DRINKS) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 628/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 October 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, as it did not specify points for determination, the decision thereon, or the reasons for the decision. Therefore, the order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing or decision on merits. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal stating the assessee was not interested in prosecuting it after multiple adjournments were sought and granted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal ex parte without deciding on merits and adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (KZ) & Hon’ble Shri A. T. Varkey, JM

Shri A. T. Varkey, JM This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A),4, Kolkata dated 28-01-2019 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

None appeared for the assessee. However, we note from perusal of ground nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee that the assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in passing an ex parte order qua the assessee without hearing it as well as not passing the impugned order on merits. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order stating that the appeal was fixed on four (4) times. However, since none attended/responded he dismissed it. He was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Therefore, he dismissed it. We note that the assessee sought adjournment on 10-08-2018 before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that from perusal of grounds of appeal that last date of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) was on 23-10-2018. However, the assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), which was passed after 3 months i. e on 28-01-2019 without fixing further hearing. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits as per provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’). The Ld.

Mohan Brothers (Drinks) (P) Ltd. CIT(A) is supposed to decide the appeal as per provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, wherein he (The Ld. CIT-A) has to specify points for determination and then his decision thereon and the reason for the decision. In this regard, sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act reads as under:- “(6) 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”.

3.

Since the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not as per statute and the Ld. CIT(A) was duty bound to dispose off the appeal as per law. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the issue(s) back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide/dispose off the grounds on merits after hearing the assessee. We also direct the assessee to be diligent before the Ld. CIT(A) and to file necessary documents along with written submissions in support of its claim/contentions, if so advised to do so.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order is pronounced in the open court on 14 October, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →