Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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)-8, Mumbai dated 27.02.2015, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 29.01.2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Inspite of issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. DR on merit in terms of Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
2 M/s. Vijaydurg Ports Pvt. Ltd.
In this appeal, the first and the foremost issue which emerges is that the CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal of the assessee ex parte without deciding on merits of the Grounds raised before him.
In brief, the relevant facts are that assessee is a company whose return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 was subject to scrutiny assessment whereby the total income was assessed at Rs.1,27,37,192/- as against the returned loss of Rs.7,92,242/-. In the scrutiny assessment, various additions were made to the returned income, which were challenged in appeal before the CIT(A). CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case as according to him assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. As per CIT(A) nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of issuing of notice of hearing.
At the time of hearing, it was pointed out to the Ld. DR that in the present case, CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal of assessee by noticing the absence of assessee without going into the merits of issues raised before him, which is in contravention of the requirements of Sec. 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. DR has not disputed the fact that appeal has been disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) without opining on the merits of issues raised before him.
Having considered the order of CIT(A), in our view, the order of CIT(A) is unsustainable inasmuch as the appeal has been dismissed in limine without adverting to the merits of Grounds raised before him.
3 M/s. Vijaydurg Ports Pvt. Ltd.
Sec. 250(6) of the Act obligates the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal in writing by stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such a decision. The said approach is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order of CIT(A) and, therefore, on this count itself the impugned order of CIT(A) is unsustainable. We hold so. Under these circumstances, 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.