Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee in this appeal filed against an order dated 01.09.2017 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai, has raised five grounds of which two assail the dismissal of appeal by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under the pretext of non prosecution.
Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had applied the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the merits of the issues raised.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 3.
supporting the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that despite grant of number of opportunities, assessee had not cared to enter appearance. According to the ld. Departmental Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. 4.
We find the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had disposed the appeal ex-parte for a reason that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the case and had not cared to enter appearance. In our opinion, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has to dispose of the appeal on merits irrespective of whether assessee appears before him or not. In the facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and send the appeal back to his file for consideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 5. statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Thursday, the 5th day of April, 2018, at Chennai.