M/S. HI-TECH ROCK PRODUCTS & AGGREGATES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - II (2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 98/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the assessee was not given proper notice of the defects. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication after allowing the assessee to rectify the defects.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on technical grounds related to mistakes in Form 35, without giving an opportunity to rectify them. The assessee argued for a chance to correct these technical defects.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeals on technical grounds without providing an opportunity for rectification, and if substantial justice requires restoration for adjudication on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Hearing: 27.05.2020Pronounced: 27.05.2020

O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai in dated 19.11.2019 for the assessment year 2010-11 and ITA No. 71/CIT(A)-6/2016-17 dated 19.11.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Mrs. S. Vijaya Prabha, Addl. CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

2.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee has filed its appeals in time. Nearly after two years of filing of the appeals and after hearing the assessee on merits, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on technical grounds without granting an opportunity to the assessee to correct the technical defects. It was the submission that the technical mistakes pointed out were mistake in the verification, mistake in the disputed demand as noted in Form 35 and inadvertently mentioning of the section number in the impugned Form 35. It was a prayer that the assessee may be granted an opportunity to rectify the mistake before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to decide the issues on merits in the appeals of the assessee.

3. In reply, the ld. DR submitted that the adjudication in respect of the technical matters is purely factual and it cannot be considered as standard operating procedure or as covered matter passed in similar circumstances and issues have been restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A). She vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the case clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on mistakes committed by the assessee in the Form 35, which has been filed, which are technical issues. It is very much known to law that when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities then substantial justice is to prevail. It is further noticed that the assessee has not been put to notice in respect of defect in the appeal filed by the assessee. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the issue must be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication, and we do so. The ld. CIT(A) shall grant the assessee adequate opportunity to rectify all such defects of technicalities as pointed out by him. After rectification of the defects, the ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the appeals of the assessee on merits. If the assessee does not rectify the defects within sixty days of the notice of defects being intimated by the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to draw due inference.

3.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th May, 2020 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →