MD MANSOOR,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 839/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the IT Act by not disposing of the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) after the AO's order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, stating notices were issued. The assessee claimed they never received the notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, and if the order complied with Section 250(6) of the IT Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 19/09/2024

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 19/06/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of MD Mansoor (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset Ld. AR submits that the learned CIT(A) recorded that so many notices were issued and because of the nonappearance of the assessee he proceeded ex parte and dismissed the appeal in limine. It is the submission that the assessee never received any such notices, and he is not conversant with the emails or portals. His main plank of argument is that even in the absence of the assessee since the assessment order is available before the learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) could have proceeded to advert to the merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with.

3.

Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities, the fact remains that the learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeal on merits. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits, instead of dismissing the same.

4.

As could be seen from the record, we find that the learned CIT(A) disposed-of the appeal ex-parte, observing that various notices have been issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised.

5.

Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is 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 reason for the decision. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. Learned AR submitted that since the learned Assessing Officer also finalized the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute his case before the learned Assessing Officer, by submitting the documents/evidence, the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits. I consider this request reasonable, and it would be in the interest of justice to remit the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for considering the submissions of the assessee and take a fresh view in the matter.

7.

With this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. I direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned Assessing Officer in getting the matter disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd September, 2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →