BREAKTHROUGH MANAGEMENT GROUP INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4080/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 August 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable as it did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) believed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal, as no one appeared despite notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex parte without deciding on the merits of the grounds raised. Whether the CIT(A)'s order complied with the procedural requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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)-8, Mumbai dated 26.03.2015, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 18.09.2013 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Inspite of service 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.

2 M/s. Breakthrough Management Group India Pvt. Ltd.

3.

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.

4.

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.85,82,130/- as against the returned income of Rs.22,33,610/-. In the scrutiny assessment, various additions were made to the returned income and penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.18,56,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty 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.

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. It was therefore pointed out that the matter deserves to be revisited by the CIT(A) as per law.

6.

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

3 M/s. Breakthrough Management Group India Pvt. Ltd. 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.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →