PRAVEEN BHASKAR RAO,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-24(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3189/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 July 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and should have decided the case on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of bus hire charges. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, drawing an adverse inference due to the assessee's absence despite notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

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, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Parekh
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Hearing: 19.6.2019Pronounced: 01.7.2019

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of learned CIT-A dated 28.12.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 wherein learned CIT-A has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment order assessing officer made 20% disallowance of bus hire charges. Up on assessee's appeal learned CIT-A noted that nobody has represented the assessee despite notice. Hence he drew adverse inference and was of the opinion that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter he also held that in absence of further evidences he was upholding the order of Assessing Officer.

3.

Against this order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Learned counsel of the assessee submitted that authorities below have totally erred in appreciating the facts of the case. He submitted that assessee is an individual and he gets ticket for the individual customers in different buses operated by different operators. He submitted that assessee gets only commission. He submitted that assessee has not hired any bus as such.

4.

Up on careful consideration I find that these facts are not arising out of the order of the Assessing Officer. Moreover, I also find that it is incumbent upon the learned CIT-A to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. For this proposition I place reliance upon following case laws. 1. CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom)302 2. CIT vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969)74 ITR 1(SC)

Accordingly in the interest of justice I remit the issue raised in the appeal the file of the learned CIT-A. Learned CIT-A is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel of the assessee has also given undertaking that he shall appear before the learned CIT(A) suo motto within two months of this order to canvas the appeal.

5.

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 1.7.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →