ANCHOR CONTAINER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-2(4), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of non-appearance without deciding the merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a company, was found to be a non-filer for AY 2010-11, with receipts of contract and rent. The AO reopened the assessment and made additions, but the assessee failed to comply with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without deciding the case on merit. Whether the CIT(A) order complied with the requirements of Section 250(6).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-1”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 26th March, 2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-32, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2010-11.
The assesssee is in its various grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the AO in the order u/s 147/144 of the Ld. CIT(A).
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and is a non filer as per information available on the i-taxnet of the department at Non filing Monitoring System (NMS), Cycle-1, for the assessment year 2010-11. It was found from the perusal of the Individual Transactions Statement (ITS) that the assessee company has received contract receipts of Rs. 5,33,723/- and rent of Rs. 65,886/-. The AO, therefore, after recording reasons issued notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act on 28th March, 2017. In response to the same, the assessee company vide letter dated 21st April, 2017 submitted that some deposits have been noted through old PAN causing loss of TDS claim. The assessee also objected to the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. However, since there was no compliance to the statutory notices issued by the AO, therefore, the AO invoking the provisions of section 144 of the I.T. Act determined total income of the assesee at Rs. 5,99,609/-.
Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted by her, the Ld. CIT(A) 2 relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another (1997) reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC), the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd. reported in 38 ITD (Delhi) 320 and various other decisions dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, However, it was seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of non appearance but she has not decided the appeal on merit. As per the provision of section 250(6), the order of the Ld. CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, in the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) without disposing the issue on merit has simply dismissed the appeal of the assesee due to non appearance which is not as per law.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026