What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals by deciding on the merits of the grounds raised and providing reasons. The impugned order was unsustainable as it was dismissed in limine without adverting to the merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed without a decision on merits, as the CIT(A) believed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without deciding the grounds raised.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without deciding on the merits of the grounds raised.

Siddharth Infraprojects P.Ltd vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Ripote

Hearing: 20/07/2016Pronounced: 12/08/2016

The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-22, Mumbai dated 22.12.2014, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

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.

2 M/s. Siddharth Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.

In this appeal, the first and the foremost plea of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in disposing 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 2010-11 was subject to scrutiny assessment whereby the total income was assessed at Rs.4,77,83,271/- as against the returned loss of Rs.5,33,341/-. In the scrutiny assessment, various additions were made to the returned income, which has been challenged 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 the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits the grounds raised before him, which is unsustainable. 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 3 M/s. Siddharth Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.

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 12th August, 2016.

SIDDHARTH INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments