M/S INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that rejecting an adjournment application does not automatically lead to dismissal of the appeal. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after rejecting the adjournment.
What were the facts?
The assessee sought an adjournment from the CIT(A) to inspect records, which was rejected. Subsequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution solely on the rejection of an adjournment application without deciding the merits of the case.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.01.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].
The assessee in this appeal has taken so many grounds of appeal, however, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has submitted that the main grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex- parte order rejecting the application of the assessee for seeking of adjournment. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not pass any order on merits. He has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A).
Management Service Pvt Ltd., Chandigarh
We have gone through the order of the CIT(A). We find that the assessee on the date of hearing i.e. 24.01.2018 had sought adjournment
on the ground that the assessee wanted to inspect the records. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the said application of the assessee and simultaneously dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. Though it is the discretion of CIT(A) either to accept or reject the adjournment application taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, however, in our view, the rejection of adjournment application does not automatically result into dismissal of the appeal itself. After rejecting the application of the assessee, the Ld.
CIT(A) was supposed to decide the appeal on merits. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine without going into the merits of the case
is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee will not seek unnecessary adjournment and will actually participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A) as and when
called for.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10.10.2018. (अ"नपूणा" गु"ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग" / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद"य/ Accountant Member "या"यक सद"य/ Judicial Member Dated : 10.10. 2018 “आर.के.”
Management Service Pvt Ltd., Chandigarh आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य आ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
