Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this appeal filed by the assessee, which is directed against an order dated 20.12.2016 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, it has raised the following grounds.
ITA No.221/Mds/2017. :- 2 -:
1.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant herein for want of prosecution.
2.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have issued a Notice of Hearing and provided an opportunity before coming to the conclusion that the Appellant had not prosecuted the matter.
3.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in assuming and stating that the Appellant had not filed written submissions. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the Written Submissions were duly filed along with a covering letter on 26.08.2016 itself in which was the ITA No. notified to us as per the Notice of hearing dated 10.05.2016.
4. In any case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not deciding the matter on merits in view of the decision in the case of Shri N.A Abuthahir v JCIT in & 540/Mds/2015 dated 17.07.2015, wherein it was held as follows: "The fact remains that the CIT(Appeals) is a statutory authority and judicial power is conferred on him under the provisions of Income-tax Act to dispose the appeals arising out of the orders of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) is expected to dispose of the appeals on merit after calling for records from the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals), being the senior-most officer of the Department, cannot disown his responsibility by saying that the assessee have not filed any material before him. The CIT(Appeals), being the first Appellate Authority under the scheme of the Income-tax Act, has to call for the material filed before the Assessing Officer and dispose of the appeals on merit .. "
Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing’’.
ITA No.221/Mds/2017. :- 3 -:
A reading of the above grounds show that assessee is aggrieved on the ex-parte order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), without considering the written submission filed by it. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee could not enter appearance before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), on various dates on which the case was posted for hearing, due to various reasons. However, according to her, assessee had filed written submission on 26.08.2016 which was not considered by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that, assessee if given one more opportunity, will appear before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and justify the grounds taken by it.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee despite being given a number of opportunities, had not appeared before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and was not vigilant in persuing its case.
We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is true that assessee was given notice for hearing, eleven times. However, for five such notices, assessee had filed letters seeking adjournments. Now the contention of the ld. Counsel before us is that written submission filed before the ITA No.221/Mds/2017. :- 4 -:
ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not considered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that ends of justice will be met if assessee is given one more opportunity by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We therefore set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the appeal back to him for consideration afresh after giving one final opportunity to the assessee to represent its case. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 5. statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 9th day of October, 2017, at Chennai.