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)-28, Mumbai dated 21.01.2015, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Mumbai dated 19.03.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal :-
“1. The order of the assessing officer is erroneous on the facts and in the law.
The Assessee was not able to attend the appeal due to unavoidable circumstances on the Called Date and even on final hearing.
3. The Assessee here making appeal that he should be given opportunity of being heard so he can produce the documents and evidences and get the justice.
For further grounds can refer the grounds submitted at the time of Commissioner Appeal.”
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.
4. In this case, it is noted that the business of the assessee is of printing and for Assessment Year 2010-11, he filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.17,10,220/-. In the scrutiny assessment total income was assessed at Rs.57,44,660/- after making various additions which included an addition of Rs.8,24,116/- on account of bogus purchases. The addition with respect to bogus purchases was challenged in appeal before the CIT(A), who has also sustained the action of the Assessing Officer. The order of CIT(A) reveals that on the appointed date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee and nor was any adjournment sought and, therefore, he concluded that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Further, the CIT(A) has endorsed the addition of Rs.8,24,116/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the discussion made in the assessment order. Against such a decision, assessee is in appeal before us on the above stated Grounds of appeal.
5. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out to the Ld. DR that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits the Grounds raised before him, which is unsustainable in law. It was therefore pointed out that the matter deserves to be revisited by the CIT(A) as per law.
Having considered the impugned order and the submissions of the Ld. DR, we find that 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 him. Sec. 250(6) of the Act prescribes that 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 him 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 him. 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 19th August, 2016.