Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-9, Pune on 30.01.2018 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08.
2 ITA No. 578/PUN/2018 A.Y.2007-08
Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that assessment in
this case was completed on total income of Rs.7,63,746/- as against
the declared income of Rs.4,04,080/- by making an addition of
Rs.3,59,666/- u/s. 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee approached the ld.
CIT(Appeals). In the meantime, the assessee applied for settlement of
the dispute under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016
(DTDRS) and sought to withdraw the appeal before the ld. CIT
(Appeals) vide his letter dated 06.12.2016, a copy of which is placed
at page 2 of the paper book. Thereafter, the application of the
assessee under Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 was
rejected. The assessee intimated this fact to the ld. CIT(A) and the
same was also communicated directly to the ld. first appellate
authority by the designated authority on 6.9.2017. Despite this fact,
the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by noticing that
assessee had offered to withdraw the appeal on 06.12.2016.
I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material
available on record. It is axiomatic that if the application of the
assessee under Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 was
rejected, the appeal originally filed should have revived. The assessee
informed the fact of filing application under Direct Tax Dispute
Resolution Scheme, 2016 as well as its rejection to the ld. CIT
(Appeals). In such circumstances, ld. CIT(Appeals) should have
disposed of the appeal on merits, even if the assessee did not
respond to his notice. In view of the foregoing facts, I am of the
3 ITA No. 578/PUN/2018 A.Y.2007-08
considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A). I order accordingly and direct him to decide the appeal
afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 4.
Order pronounced on 13th day of December, 2018.
Sd/- R.S. SYAL उपा�य� /VICE-PRESIDENT
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 13th December, 2018. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-9, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-6, Pune. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.
// True Copy //
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
4 ITA No. 578/PUN/2018 A.Y.2007-08
Date 1 Draft dictated on 12.12.2018 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 12.12.2018 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. Sr. PS/PS PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order
*