M/S. CUE APPARELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, even in case of default. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in default due to non-appearance. The assessee challenged the subsequent penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order even when the assessee defaults in appearing for the appeal hearing. Whether the dismissal of the appeal in default by the CIT(A) without a reasoned order is legally valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. BHAVNESH SAINI & SH. L. P. SAHU
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)–VI, New Delhi, dated 20.03.2014 for assessment year 2006-07, challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that various notices have been issued to the assessee for hearing of the appeal. However, the appeal was adjourned many times on the request of the assessee’s counsel. On the last date of hearing none attended appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in default.
After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of Ld. CIT(A). According to section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned order by mentioning point for determination in the order and reasons for decisions. Even if, the assessee did not appear before him for disposal of the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned order by mentioning point for determination in the impugned order. Thus, Section 250(6) of the Act have been violated, therefore, order of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law. The matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A).
In view of the above discussions, we set aside the order of the authorities below and restore the appeal of the assessee to his file with direction to re-decide the appeal of the assessee on merit giving reasons for decision in the appeallate order by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.11.2017. Sd/- Sd/- (L. P. SAHU) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 13.11.2017 @m!t
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026