MR. RAMASAMY ARUNACHALAM,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1078/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. For the ends of justice, the impugned order was set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee claimed to have not received the hearing notice due to technical glitches and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) properly followed the procedure by deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee, or if an ex parte order was erroneously passed.

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, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 24.06.2024Pronounced: 27.06.2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are two appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, both dated 21.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without going into the merits of the case. According to him, the impugned action of Ld CIT(A) is in violation of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & 1079/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Shri Ramasamy Arunachalam :: 2 ::

1.

(hereinafter in short "the Act”). According to the assessee, he has not received notice of hearing due to some glitches in the internet/digital/computer. Therefore, he prays for one more opportunity.

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give assessee one more innings to the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of records, we note that impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee.

We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal on merits as required u/s.250(6) of the Act. In such circumstances, for the ends of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issues as per sub-section (6) of sec.250 of the Act.

5.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 27th day of June, 2024, in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →