MARY KAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5401/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 July 2020AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and had dismissed it based on an incorrect observation regarding the appeal fee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to an alleged non-payment of appeal fee. The assessee contended that the fee was paid and the challan was filed, but this was overlooked by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits based on a factual inaccuracy regarding the payment of appeal fees.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta,, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Malhotra, AR

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-38, Delhi dated 16.3.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, the learned AR submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine by making an observation that the assessee has not paid the requisite appeal fee and the Challan thereof is not there in the papers filed by the assessee pertaining to the appeal before him. It was submitted that this observation of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) is factually incorrect as the Challan had been deposited and the same was filed along with the appeal papers. He also drew our attention to the copy of the Challan placed in the Paper Book and submitted that since the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has not decided the assessee’s appeal on merits, he should be so directed. It was also mentioned by the learned AR that the assessee was considering filing an application under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

3.

Per contra, the learned Senior DR had no objection to the file being restored to the office of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) for adjudication on merits.

4.

Having heard both the parties and considering that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has not adjudicated the assessee’s appeal on merits and has dismissed it only on an incorrect observation that the assessee has not deposited the requisite appeal fee, we deem it expedient to restore the file to the office of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) with the direction to adjudicate it on merits, after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd July, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →