SAGAR CONSTRUCTION,INDORE vs. CIT(A), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 336/IND/2024Status: HeardITAT Indore22 August 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was a non-speaking order and not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution due to non-response to multiple notices. The assessee did not appear for the ITAT hearing, and the notice sent via RPAD was returned as incomplete.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a speaking order is valid. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for adjudication on merits.

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, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Appellant: Shri Ram Kumar, Yadav, CIT- DR
Hearing: 20.08.2024Pronounced: 22.08.2024

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 15.02.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, for A.Y.2013-14.

2.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. The notice send through RPAD has been received back with the postal remark as incomplete address. However, the notice send through e-mail to the e-mail ID given in ITANo.336/Ind/2024 Sagar Construction form no.36 has been duly delivered therefore, the bench proposes to hear and disposed of this appeal ex-parte.

3.

We have gone through the impugned order of the CIT(A) and found that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for non- prosecution by a non-speaking impugned order. Thus, the bench found that the impugned order of the CIT(A) is not in accordance with provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which mandates the first appellate authority to pass a speaking order by giving reasons for adjudication of the issues involved in the appeal. However, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily as under:

“DECISION During the course of appeal, the appellant has preferred not to respond to any of the notices dated 03.09.2018, 05.10.2018, 22.01.2019, 12.03.2020, 17.12.2020, 15.12.2022 and 06.07.2023 for compliance on or before 11.09.2018, 11.10.2018, 30.01.2019, 17.03.2020, 25.12.2020, 30.12.2022, 21.07.2023 respectively. I am hence of the opinion that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the appellant, who has chosen to ignore the notices. I have hence no hesitation in dismissing the appeal” Thus, it clear that the appeal of the assesse was dismissed for non- prosecution therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4.

Ld. DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

ITANo.336/Ind/2024 Sagar Construction 5. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The notice of hearing shall be issued by CIT(A) to the e-mail ID given in form 35.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 22 .08.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →