SAROJ SUGANDHI,BHOPAL (M.P.) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHOPAL (M.P.)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 219/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 September 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merit as required by law. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication on merit, with directions for the assessee to participate and for the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee did not make submissions despite opportunities. The assessee contended that the hearings were scheduled with insufficient notice, especially during the Covid period and a short span between later hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merit when it was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, and if the scheduling of hearings was reasonable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms.Komal Wadhwani and Ms. Komal Kataria, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.09.2024Pronounced: 10.09.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 08.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT-(A)-1, Delhi, [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-5(2), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Page 1 of 3 CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. Referring to Para 4 of impugned order, Ld. AR for assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) fixed 1st hearing on 20.01.2021 during Covid period.

Thereafter, the CIT(A) fixed 2nd and 3rd hearing on 15.01.2024 and 05.02.2024 respectively which were within a span of just 20 days after a gap of about 3 years from 1st hearing, therefore the assessee could not attend hearings. It is further observed that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the grounds/ issues raised by assessee in first-appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “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.”. Ld. AR for assessee acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

3.

Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication on merit. The Page 2 of 3 appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

4.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →