AIR NETWORK SOLUTIONS,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2116/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2018AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision after affording reasonable opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) without allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without going into the merits of the case. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits and providing a reasoned order. Whether sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Pronounced: 18.12.2019

आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

1.

The present appeals filed by assessee are against order of CIT(A)-19, New Delhi dated 31.03.2016 relating to assessment year 2011- 12 against order passed u/s 144 and penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act..

2.

In these appeals, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) for deciding the appeals ex-parte qua the assessee and without going into the merits of the addition.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and we find that the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order without allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without going into the merits of the case.

4.

The learned DR for the Revenue on the other hand pointed out that sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the assessee.

5.

We have heard Ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the record. Under the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”), it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide these appeals after hearing the parties and state the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision. While deciding the appeals, CIT(A) has no power to dismiss these appeals for non prosecution by relying on the ratio/s laid down in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another 118 ITR 461 (SC) and Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). In these facts and circumstances, where the CIT(A) had dismissed these appeals by applying the above said ratios, the order of the learned CIT(A) suffers from infirmity.

The CIT(A) while deciding the issue on merits have also to give reasons for coming to the conclusion and in the absence of the same, the order of the CIT(A) again suffers from infirmity. In these appeals, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals ex-parte qua the assessee and had failed to decide the appeals by passing reasoned assessment order.

6.

Accordingly, we set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits by a reasoned order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further the assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and participate in the appellate proceedings. These appeals are thus decided on this preliminary issue without going into the merits of the addition.

7.

Hence these appeals are restored back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A). The preliminary issue raised in these appeals is thus decided in favour of assessee. Since these appeals are being decided on the preliminary issue, we are not addressing the issue raised on merit.

8.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th day of December, 2019.

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 →