RANJEET SINGH PAWAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(2), BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 216/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 July 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution without complying with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, nor did they file an adjournment application, despite proper service of notice. The revenue's representative was present and made submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 144

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 Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.07.2024Pronounced: 30.07.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 21.12.2018 passed by learned ITO- 5(2), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal.

Shri Ranjeet Singh Pawar, Bhopal

2.

When the case is called, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application for adjournment is filed despite service of notice of hearing. Ld. DR for revenue was however ready for submissions. On perusal of case- records, it is found that the present matter can be decided even in absence of assessee, on the basis of available record and after hearing Ld. DR for revenue. Therefore, the hearing is proceeded.

3.

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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.”. We observe that in present case, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6).

Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for restoring to lower-level for a proper adjudication. Ld. DR for revenue pointed out that the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte u/s 144, therefore it would be better if the case is restored to AO for a proper adjudication subject to a specific direction to assessee to make representation before AO.

4.

In view of above, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before AO. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a proper adjudication on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to ensure

Shri Ranjeet Singh Pawar, Bhopal participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

5.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court immediately after conclusion of hearing and subsequent reduced in writing on the very same day.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →