ASHISH SAHAI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4463/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 December 2016AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was not in consonance with the spirit of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order was set aside and the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution, confirming additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of commission and interest income. The assessee challenged this dismissal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without properly adjudicating the dispute as per Section 250(6) of the IT Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-2 : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

For Appellant: Shri Subham Bansal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27.12.2016Pronounced: 27.12.2016

ORDER

PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM:

1.

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dated 10th February, 2016 passed for Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

The grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing his appeal for want of prosecution and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.4,63,356/- and Rs.1,09,324/- which have been added by the AO on account of disallowance of commission as well as on account of interest income.

3.

With the assistance of ld. representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section (6) of section 250 contemplates that the ld. first appellate authority shall determine the point in dispute and, thereafter, record reasons on those points in support of the conclusion.

In the impugned order, the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and the order is not in consonance with the spirit of sub-section (6) of section 250. Therefore, I set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore all these issues to the file of the ld. first appellate authority for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) and not to take more than three adjournments.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 27.12.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →