SAKET METAL TECHNOCRAFT PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6905/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 January 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was violative of Section 250(6) of the IT Act as it failed to provide points for determination and reasons for the decision. The order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution despite multiple adjournments. The CIT(A) reproduced the assessment order and dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without providing reasons and points for determination is valid.

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”: DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 04.01.2021Pronounced: 04.01.2021

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi dated 12.06.2019 for AY 2015-16. 2. Assessee has been notified the date of hearing through registered post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. I have heard Ld. DR and perused the findings of the authorities below.

2 ITA.No.6905/Del./2019

4.

In this case, Ld. CIT(A) has noted certain dates of hearing which were fixed for hearing of the appeal. It is also noted that assessee has been repeatedly seeking adjournment. Ld. CIT(A), thereafter, reproduced the entire assessment order in the impugned order and concluded that since the assessee did not press the appeal despite several opportunities. Therefore, in absence of any counter to the assessment order appeal of assessee was dismissed.

5.

The facts noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order clearly show that the impugned order is violative of Sec. 250(6) of the IT Act. Even if the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) shall have to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order. Since the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of the assessee merely dismiss the appeal of the assessee in default, would clearly show that impugned order is violative of Sec. 250(6) of the IT Act and, as such, cannot be sustained in law. 6. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi with direction to re-decide the appeal of the assessee strictly on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. Ld. CIT(A) is directed to give opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3 ITA.No.6905/Del./2019

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.01.2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →