DHARAMPAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6087/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 February 2019AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was required to decide appeals on merits with reasons, even in the absence of the assessee. Dismissing for non-prosecution without deciding on merits is not sustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed for non-prosecution due to repeated adjournments and the assessee's absence. The CIT(A) did not decide the appeals on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits and providing reasons for the decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 11.02.2019Pronounced: 11.02.2019

ORDER Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against the different orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida, dated 30.06.2017, for the A.Y. 2008-2009 on the quantum as well as on penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned orders that initially appeals were adjourned on the request of the assessee. Thereafter, assessee was informed telephonically of the next date of hearing. However, again appeals are 2 ITA.No.6086 & 6087/Del./2017 Shri Dharmpal, Noida adjourned on the request of the assessee. On the last date of hearing, again request for adjournment was received on the reason that Counsel for Assessee is out of India. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, noted that assessee is not keen on canvassing its appeals, therefore, the same were dismissed for non-prosecution.

3.

After hearing the Learned D.R. and on perusal of the impugned orders, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A), in the absence of assessee, dismissed the appeals of the assessee for non-prosecution.

1.

4. According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. Even if the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) should have to decide the appeal on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeals of the assessee for non- prosecution. Therefore, the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law.

3 ITA.No.6086 & 6087/Del./2017 Shri Dharmpal, Noida 5. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A), Noida, and restore the appeals of the assessee to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeals of assessee in accordance with law, giving reasons for decision in the appellate order, by giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →