RAJIV R. AHUJA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 25(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3233/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 October 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was untenable as it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) did not address the grounds of appeal but dismissed it solely on the assessee's absence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to non-appearance, despite the CIT(A) having made additions to the assessee's income. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed the prescribed procedure under Section 250(6) of the Act when dismissing the appeal due to the assessee's absence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 69C,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Hearing: 25/10/2017Pronounced: 25/10/2017

The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-44, Mumbai dated 23.02.2016, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Mumbai dated 26.03.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

In this appeal, assessee has challenged the additions of Rs.32,17,253/- made by the Assessing Officer under various heads, namely, late deposit of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and 40A(3) of the Act. Notably, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that inspite of providing opportunity of hearing, assessee did not attend and therefore it implied that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal before him.

3.

When the appeal came up for hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee, but it was deemed fit to reject the same as the appeal can be disposed off on a short point. Notably, the CIT(A) was obligated to dispose off the appeal in the manner prescribed u/s 250(6) of the Act. Sec. 250(6) of the Act prescribes that the order of the CIT(A) disposing off the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In the context of the requirements of Sec. 250(6) of the Act, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is untenable inasmuch as the CIT(A) has not referred to the grounds raised by the assessee and his decision thereon. Instead, he has dismissed the appeal merely on the ground that the absence of the assessee showed his disinterest in pursuing the appeal before him. Compliance to the requirements of Sec. 250(6) of the Act is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order and, therefore, on this point itself, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) who shall adjudicate the matter de novo as per law. Needless to mention, the CIT(A) shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and only thereafter proceed to dispose off the appeal as per law.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above.

The above decision was pronounced in the open court after hearing the ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 25th October, 2017.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →