What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for default without proper reasons and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard was not sustainable in law. The matter was set aside for re-adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for default as the notice was returned unserved with the remark 'no such person'. The CIT(A) did not provide reasons for the decision in the appellate order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for default without providing reasons and affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Naresh Kumar Kubba, Vrindavan vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 12.06.2018Pronounced: 12.06.2018

ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi dated 26.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2009-10.

After hearing Ld.Sr.D.R., I am of the view that the matter requires re-consideration at the level of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) noted that the appeal was adjourned three times and lastly notice was issued to the assessee for 16th October, 2017 which was received un- served with the remark by the postal authorities ‘no such person’. Ld.CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. According to S.250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), Ld.CIT(A) is required to mention the point for determination in the appellate order and shall give reasons for decision in the appellate order. Since the appeal has been dismissed for default only, therefore, such order of Ld.CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law.

ITA 80/Del/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 : Sh.Naresh Kumar Kubba vs. ITO

NARESH KUMAR KUBBA,VRINDAVAN vs. ITO, WARD- 47(3), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments