M/S. MARIA EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 425/LKW/2019Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 March 2022AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee disputed the service of hearing notices by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity. Whether the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of representation.

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, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Seth, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur, dated 23.4.2018, for assessment years 2014- 15. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution, observing that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has observed to have issued two notices, dated 8.12.2017 and 29.3.2018, fixing the dates of hearing on 8.1.2018 and 10.4.2018 respectively and passed the order on 23.4.2018, dismissing the appeal qua the assessee. But, it is not clear from his order whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee. 3. Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, Page 2 of 2 he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. In this view of the matter, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld. CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them.

4.

In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →