CARAVEL LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. The ex-parte dismissal without considering the grounds was not proper.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte due to non-representation, despite the assessee facing business losses and difficulties in pursuing the matter. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds raised on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai dated 04.01.2019 relevant to the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Besides raising various grounds on merits, the assessee has challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was completed after making various disallowance(s), against which, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for all the assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the disallowance(s) made in the assessment order, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, despite various opportunities given and since there was no representation from assessee’s side, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeals, Against the non- appearance, it was the submissions of the ld. Counsel that due to heavy incurring of repair of vessels, the Managing Director of the assessee company was moving from place to place and huge losses were incurred in the business. Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to pursue the matter before the ld. CIT(A) through their representative and thus, prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present it case. Without adjudicating the grounds raised in the appeals of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on the ground that there was no representation from assessee despite various opportunities given. Considering the facts and materials available on record, the ld. CIT(A) is expected to adjudicate the issues on merits, which was not done in this case. In view of the above, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits in accordance with law after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 19th July, 2019 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 92CA(3)
- Addi. CIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs Aon Services India P.Ltd, New DelhiITA 5988/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2008-09
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Quantium Analytics Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), HyderabadITA 1336/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Ba Continuum India Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle -1(1), HyderabadITA 205/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026