What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in conformity with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it did not address the merits of the case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution after multiple notices were issued. The assessee argued that they were not given sufficient opportunity and the appeal was dismissed summarily.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly followed the statutory procedure for disposing of an appeal, including providing sufficient opportunity and passing a speaking order.

M/S. Multiplex Capital Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

For Appellant: Ms. Aruna Mittal, CA

Hearing: 23.08.2016Pronounced: 18.10.2016

Date of Hearing 23.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement 18.10.2016 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 23.02.2015 of CIT(A)-6, Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year. The parties were heard only in respect to Ground No.2 & 3 raised in the present appeal which reads as under:-

“That the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal without allowing sufficient opportunity to the appellant is bad in law and deserve to be set aside.

That the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have passed the order on merit of the case instead of dismissing the appeal summarily without referring the assessment records, ground of appeal and statements of facts.”

A perusal of the record shows that the CIT(A) after noting that various notices had 2. been issued to the assessee in regard to which neither any adjournment petition was placed nor any one was present, dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

I.T.A .No.-2281/Del/2015 3. The ld.AR has argued that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The Ld.Sr.DR had no objection to the said request.

3.1. I have heard the rival submission and perused the record. I find that the mode of decision making adoption by the ld.CIT(A) is not in conformity with the Statutory Requirements as set out in sub-section (6) of section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The same is reproduced hereunder for ready-reference:- PROCEDURE IN APPEAL 250. “(1) …………………………………………. (2) ………………………………………………… (3) ………………………………………………… (4) …………………………………………………. (5) …………………………………………………. (6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. (6A)...................................................................”

3.2. It is seen that the issue of addition by way of a disallowance u/s 14A made by the AO which was under challenge by the assessee was not even addressed by the ld.CIT(A) while passing the order. In view of this blatant and glaring Statutory deficiency the issue is set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of the statutory mandate.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 18th October 2016.

M/S. MULTIPLEX CAPITAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments