FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENGALPUT vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 November 2016AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of sufficient cause for non-appearance, decided to grant one more opportunity for hearing. The matter was remitted back to the DRP for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on the scheduled date due to heavy rain and transportation issues. The DRP dismissed the case ex-parte without providing a proper hearing opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the DRP was justified in dismissing the assessee's case ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. Whether the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR

आदेश / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeals by assessee directed against the direction of the DRP dated 04.12.2015 passed u/s. 144C(5) of the IT Act.

I.T.A. No. 426/Mds/2016 :- 2 -:

2.

The assessee grievance in this appeal is with regard to dismissing the case of the assessee by the DRP, exparte without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

In this case, the case was fixed before the DRP for hearing on 03.12.2015 at 04:00pm, accordingly notice was issued by DRP. None appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition from the side of the assessee. Hence, the DRP dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the objections filed before DRP.

Now the assessee filed appeal against the above order of the DRP and submitted that assessee is very much interested in prosecuting the appeal and also submitted that on 03.12.2015 there was a heavy rain in Chennai and there was no means of any transportation facility to go to Bangalore. He submitted that due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and failed to appear before the DRP on 03.12.2015 and prayed that one more opportunity of hearing may be given to the assessee to present assessee's case properly before DRP. The Ld. DR has not put any serious objections for the above arguments of Ld. AR.

Considering the request of the Ld. AR, we are inclined give direction to the DRP to give one more opportunity to assessee to present assessee's case.

Accordingly, the entire issue in dispute remitted to the file of the DRP for fresh consideration.

I.T.A. No. 426/Mds/2016 :- 3 -:

4.

Since, we have remitted entire issue in dispute to the file of DRP, we are not going into the merit of the other ground raised by the assessee before us.

In the result appeal after assessee partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 02nd day of November, 2016 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 144C(5)

All 865 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →