DEEPA LOHIA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-47(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2094/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 August 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal on merits as per statutory requirements. Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte as the assessee did not appear on multiple occasions. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not dispose of the appeal on merits as required by law.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the merits of the case as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, HON’BLE VICE-(KZ) &

For Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Hearing: 03/08/2020Pronounced: 12/08/2020

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Smt. Madhumita Roy, JM:

1.

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-14 Kolkata arising out of the order dated 30.06.2017 by the ITO, 47(3), Kolkata under section 271(1)(C) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for assessment year 2014-15.

Deepa Lohia Assessment Year:2014-15 2. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, upon perusal of the records particularly the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A), it appears that the said order was passed ex parte since none appeared on three occasions on behalf of the appellant nor any written reply was filed on the date of hearing before him. The learned CIT(A), therefore, opined that the assessee was not serious to pursue its case and relying upon the decision expressed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiple in India Ltd, reported in 38 ITD 320 dismissed the matter in limine.

3.

It is pertinent to mention that subsection 6 of section 250 of the Act while laying down the procedure in appeal, specifically inserted the direction upon the Commissioner Appeals to dispose of the appeal in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision, meaning thereby the appeal is required to be disposed of dealing with the merit and not dismissing the same in limine, ex parte in the garb of disposal. It is needless to mention that in the case in hand before us, the Learned CIT(A) did not perform hhis duty as envisaged under the statute as explained hereinabove and hence the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

We, therefore, keeping in view the entire aspect of the matter, in order to render effective justice find it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with the direction upon him to decide the appeal afresh upon giving a further opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record and also the evidence which the assessee may choose to Page | 2

Deepa Lohia Assessment Year:2014-15 file before him. However, we make it clear that the assessee will also cooperate in disposing of the appeal by the Learned CIT(A) without asking for any unnecessary adjournment.

4.

In the result assesse’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 12.08.2020

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 →