RAJASTHAN PRIME STEEL PROCESSING CENTER PVT. LTD.,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 15(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3292/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 March 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had provided only three opportunities to the assessee, with adjournments sought on two occasions and a missed hearing on the third. Considering that the assessee failed to make a representation on only one occasion, the Tribunal, in the larger interest of justice, set aside the appellate order of the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee fails to represent their case or furnish documentary evidence, the CIT(A) is free to decide the appeal in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The issue of the additions made by the AO was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rao Mohar Singh Educational Society, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) had provided only three opportunities, with adjournments sought on the first two occasions and a missed hearing on the last. The revenue supported the CIT(A)'s order, stating the assessee failed to file submissions despite multiple opportunities. The ITAT reviewed the material and noted the CIT(A) had provided three opportunities, dismissing the appeal ex-parte when the assessee failed to respond on the final date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, considering the circumstances of missed hearings and adjournment requests, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution despite only three opportunities being provided. The assessee sought adjournments on the first two occasions and missed the hearing on the third. The assessee prayed for one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to file any submissions despite being provided with multiple opportunities, and therefore, the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, Advocate, Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.07.2025Pronounced: 25.07.2025

[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Rao Mohar Singh Educational Society, Vs ITO, Roshan Pura Paprawat Road, Ward Exemption 2(4), Najafgarh S.O Najafgarh, Civic Centre, Delhi Delhi-110043. PAN- AABTR0883R Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Tarun, Advocate Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM,

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A), in short], dated 16.05.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 40/10560/2019-20 for Assessment Years 2017-18, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).

2.

Before us, ld.AR of the assessee submits that appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) ex-parte for non-prosecution. It is submitted by ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has provided only three opportunities and on first two occasions, assessee sought adjournment and on last occasion, assessee missed the date of hearing. He submits that only for one default, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was his prayer that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) with documentary evidences in support of the claim made.

3.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) and stated that despite of providing so many opportunities, assessee failed to file any submission thus, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.

4.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. A perusal of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has provided only three opportunities to the assessee and when the assessee had failed to respond on last date, it was in this backdrop that the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose-off the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte, sustaining the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders.

4.1 Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make representation only one occasion and on other two occasions, adjournment application were filed before the ld. CIT(A) thus, in the larger interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore it back again to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the assessee fails to represent his case or furnish any documentary evidences, the ld. CIT(A) is free to decide the appeal of the assessee in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.07.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →