SUYOGI ENTERPRIESES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4656/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 December 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by not disposing of the appeals in writing with reasons. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to their absence during the hearing, despite notices being sent. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeals in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act, or if dismissal for absence alone is sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU

For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh
Hearing: 29/12/2016Pronounced: 29/12/2016

ORDER The captioned appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are directed against orders passed by CIT(A)-44, Mumbai dated 18/03/2013, which in turn, arise out of orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 25/03/2013.

2.

It is seen from the record that the notice for hearing has been sent to the stated address of the appellant by registered post, which has come back as unclaimed. As a consequence, I proceed to dispose of these appeals, ex-parte, qua the assessee after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative on merits as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

3.

In both assessment years, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee noticing the absence of the assessee inspite of the notice of hearing having been issued. It is noticed that the appeals have been dismissed merely on the ground that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. However, the requirement of section 250(6) of the Act is that the CIT(A) shall dispose of the appeal in writing by stating the point for determination and the decision thereon and the reasons for the decisions. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) show that the issues raised in the Grounds of appeal by the assessee have not been culled out and adjudicated, whereas the appeals have been dismissed merely noticing the absence of the assessee.

4. In my considered opinion, the CIT(A) ought to have disposed of the appeals in terms of the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and not in a summary manner. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the issues involved, the orders of the CIT(A) are se-aside and the appeals are restored back to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per law. As a consequence, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/12/2016

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →