SHRI PRAVINBHAI HARILAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1804/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 March 2022AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal on merits with a reasoned order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The assessee also had a two-day delay in filing the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without disposing it on merits. Whether the ITAT should grant an opportunity for a fresh hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),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, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP&

For Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.03.2022

O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders all dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara arising out of the order all dated 12.12.2017 passed by the ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Baroda under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

It appears that none appears on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the matter. It also appears that none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceeding &1822/Ahd/2019 Shri Pravinbhai Harilal Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2015-16 - 2 - though on a number of occasions the matter was fixed for hearing. Finally for want of prosecution the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal relying on the judgment passed in the matter of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). Hence, the instant appeal before us.

3.

Admittedly, this appeal is against an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is also a fact that number of occasions none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. However, in terms of the statutory provision under Section 250(6) of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) is to dispose of the appeal on merit with a reasoned order which is absent in the instant case before us. Hence, we set-aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter and to dispose of the appeal with a reasoned order. We make it clear that the assessee would also not ask for any unnecessary adjournment and would cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in adjudicating the matter. Hence, assessee’s appeal is disposed of with statistical purposes. (A.Y.2015-16):- 4. There is a delay of two days in preferring the appeal before us by the assessee. However, keeping in view the principle of fair play the delay is condoned. &1822/Ahd/2019 Shri Pravinbhai Harilal Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2015-16 - 3 -

5.

The identical issue involved in the case has already been dealt with by us in A.Y. 2015-16 and in the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. Hence, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →