MARG DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2751/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 April 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeal on merits, regardless of the assessee's appearance. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee argued that the appeal should have been decided on merits, not dismissed without considering the issues.

What were the issues?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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]

For Respondent: Mr ARV Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT

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.

2.

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.

1.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →