What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

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

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case.

Priti H Poladia vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYAM, AM

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Bepari

Hearing: 16.10.2018Pronounced: 17.10.2018

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 30.11.2017 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2007-08, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

Upon hearing the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and perusing the records, I find that it is incumbent upon the ld. CIT(A) to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws.

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 I remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. 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.

PRITI H POLADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 20(2)(5), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments