M/S. ABHINAV DWIVEDI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2379/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to follow the statutory mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires a speaking order with points of determination, decision, and reasons. The impugned order was set aside for this procedural deficiency.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to non-appearance on multiple hearing dates. The CIT(A) relied on previous case law for this dismissal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed the mandatory procedural requirements of passing a speaking order as stipulated in Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 17.03.2016Pronounced: 04.05.2016

Date of Hearing 17.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement 04.05.2016 ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 22.01.2015 of CIT(A), Ghaziabad pertaining to 2010–11 assessment year.

2.

No one was present on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. However considering the material available on record and the submissions of the Ld. Sr.DR it was considered appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merit. The record shows that the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad has passed an ex-parte order, in view of the fact that on the various dates the appeal was fixed for hearing, no one was present and the appeal was adjourned. In these circumstances, after having afforded various opportunities finally the Ld. CIT(A)

I.T.A .No.-2379/Del/2015 dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, relying upon the decision in the cases of CIT vs B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 and Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs CWT 223 IR 480 (MP). On consideration of the impugned order, we find that the statutory mandate of the Act has not been followed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal. Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandates that the CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order, the specific sub-section is reproduced hereunder for ready-reference:- 250. “(1) …………………………………………. (2) ………………………………………………… (3) ………………………………………………… (4) …………………………………………………. (5) …………………………………………………. (6) 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 reason for the decision. (6A)...................................................................”

3.

The specific provision requires the First Appellate Authority to set out points for determination and the decision thereon supported by reasons for arriving at a conclusion. The said mandatory exercise in the aforesaid provision in the peculiar facts of the present case is found to be not fulfilled. Accordingly holding the impugned order violative of the statutory mandate it is set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) to make good the statutory deficit. Needless to say that before passing the order, a reasonable opportunity shall be provided to the assessee. While so directing it is hoped that the opportunity so provided is not abused by the assessee and is utilized in good faith as failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record.

I.T.A .No.-2379/Del/2015

4.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 04 of May, 2016.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →