RAKESH KUMAR KALRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-47(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4676/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 July 2018AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal for non-prosecution was not sustainable in law as it lacked proper reasoning and points for determination. The ITAT set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee did not appear for hearings. The assessee then filed a stay application and an appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without providing proper reasoning and points for determination. The procedural fairness in appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Hearing: 20.07.2018Pronounced: 20.07.2018

ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.: We have heard the learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record.

2.

The assessee has filed the stay application for stay of the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2013-14. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is being decided along with the stay application.

3.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi dated 21.06.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.

4.

The ld. CIT(A) noted certain dates of hearing , on which the assessee did not appear before him for hearing and to argue the appeal on merits.

The ld. CIT(A) noted that despite giving opportunity to the assessee, there is no compliance on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. According to section 250(6) of the IT Act, the ld. CIT(A) is required to give points for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution only. Thus, his order cannot be sustained in law.

5.

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on merits strictly as per law by giving points for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order. The ld. CIT(A) shall provide reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →