SRI CHITTA RANJAN DAS,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-1, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1309/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 December 2016AY 2010-20113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merit. This was done to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, subject to payment of costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. The assessee claimed non-compliance was due to illness, while the department highlighted multiple opportunities were given.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution without considering the merits is proper, and if a further opportunity should be granted to the assessee.

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, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata dated 31.03.2016 passed ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution.

2.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was due to the illness of the assessee during the relevant period as a result of which the required information could not be given by the assessee to his Authorized Representative. He has urged that one ./2016 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 3 more opportunity may, therefore, be given to the assessee by remitting the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. D.R., however, has raised a strong objection in this regard by pointing out that the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on nine different occasions spanning over a period of about two years and still the assessee failed to avail the sufficient opportunity afforded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to put forth his case. I find some merit in this argument raised by the ld. D.R. At the same time, it is also noted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee mainly for non- prosecution without going into the merit of the issues raised by the assessee, which is not in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250, which specifically provides that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) disposing of the appeal has to be in writing stating therein, the points for determination, the decision thereon and reason for the decision. I, therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the assessee to put forth his case before the ld. CIT(Appeals) subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. Subject to the said payment, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) passed ex parte is set aside and the matter is remitted back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →