ANZ CAPITAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) (1)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on the merits of the grounds raised, which is contrary to the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte because no one appeared on their behalf. The assessee claimed this was due to an inadvertent error and requested the appeal be restored for fresh adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds of appeal. Whether the CIT(A) followed the prescribed procedure for disposing of an appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-59, Mumbai dated 08.01.2015, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006-07 (24Q 4), which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 15.03.2011 under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
In this appeal, the first and the foremost plea of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal of the assessee ex parte without deciding on merits of the Grounds raised before her.
2 ANZ Capital Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2080/Mum/2015
In brief, the relevant facts are that assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The Assessing Officer held the assessee to be in default for non-payment of tax deducted vide order u/s 201(1)/201(1A), which was challenged in appeal before the CIT(A). CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case as according to her assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal because nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of issuance of notice of hearing.
Before us, the plea of the assessee is that the notice of hearing could not be complied with due to certain inadvertent error and, in any case, it is pointed out that the CIT(A) has unjustly dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits the Grounds raised before her. It was submitted that the appellant would be satisfied if the appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has not controverted the factual matrix brought out by the learned representative for the assessee and has also not opposed the plea for remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT(A).
We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Quite clearly, in the present case the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without going into the merits of the issues raised before her. Sec. 250(6) of the Act prescribes that 3 ANZ Capital Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2080/Mum/2015 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 reasons for such a decision. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeal in the manner prescribed in Sec. 250(6) of the Act, which requires that the issues raised before her by way of the Grounds of appeal are addressed, decision rendered thereon by stating the reasons for such a decision. The said approach is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order of the CIT(A), wherein the appeal has been dismissed in limine without adverting to the merits of the Grounds of appeal raised before her. Therefore, on this count itself, the impugned order of CIT(A) is unsustainable. Be that as it may, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the impugned order of CIT(A) and remand the appeal back to his file for adjudication afresh as per law after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2016.
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026