MAU SAJID,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 146/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 June 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee remained unrepresented before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, leading to the dismissal of their appeal for want of prosecution. The assessee later provided satisfactory reasons for their absence.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee's reasons for absence were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Shri Amrit Lal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 08.06.2017Pronounced: 09.06.2017

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 06.10.2016 in relation to the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the assessment order was passed u/s 144. Despite certain opportunities granted by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee remained unrepresented. Resultantly, the appeal was : “dismissed for want of prosecution.”

3.

The ld. AR submitted the reasons for absence, with which I am satisfied. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for framing the assessment afresh as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that if the assessee still evades the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer will be entitled to draw adverse inference against the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 09th June, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →