What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it for non-prosecution. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee appealed this dismissal to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution instead of deciding it on merits.

Krishnamurthy Rajagopalan vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGHShri Krishnamurthy Rajagopalan

For Appellant: Shri. A.L. Sharma

For Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh

Date of Hearing –02/04/2019 Date of Order - 03/04/2019

O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA, JM

This is an appeal by the assessee directed against order of Ld. CIT(A) -42, Mumbai dated 10/11/2016 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily for non-prosecution.

Shri Krishnamurthy Rajagopalan 2. Upon hearing both the counsel and perused the records we 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. 3. For this proposition, we 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, we 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.

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

KRISHNAMURTHY RAJAGOPALAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments