SARAT JAIN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 863/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 August 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, especially when an adjournment was sought due to return filing deadlines, was not appropriate. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution after an adjournment application was rejected. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not provide further notice before dismissal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merits and without providing adequate notice after rejecting an adjournment application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F + SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21/08/2018

PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 30.11.2017, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) Noida for the quantum of assessment u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2013-14.

1.

2 In the grounds of appeal the assessee has stated that it had filed adjournment application on the first date of hearing before CIT (A), i.e., 27.7.2017 and the appeal was dismissed on 30.11.2017 without giving any further notice. Apart from that, assessee has also challenged addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- made u/s 68. Before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that, Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, after rejecting the adjournment application on the ground that the reason given in the adjournment application was not valid.

3. Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that matter can be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh.

4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT (A) has noted that assessee has filed adjournment application on 27.7.2017, wherein it was submitted that the authorized representative could not appear due to last date of filing of return of income which was due on 31st July, 2017 and hence he could not prepare the case. Ld. CIT (A) has held that this is not a valid reason and therefore, he dismissed the appeal for non prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits. Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we feel that the entire issue of addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- made u/s 68 should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee. We order accordingly.

5.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th August, 2018. sd/- sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28/08/2018 Veena

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →