MADHURI SHARAD KORGAONKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In all the appeals, the preliminary issue arises from the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals of the assessee ex-parte noticing the absence of the assessee without adjudicating on the merit of the issues raised by the assessee. for assessment year 2008-09 is taken as the lead case. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) -22 Mumbai dated 22/12/2014, which in turn arises out of an order dated 19/02/2013 passed under section 179 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

In brief, the relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual, who was director in one concern namely M/s. Siddharth Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer noticed that consequent to the assessment of M/s. Siddharth Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10, the tax liability determined was outstanding for long and not being recovered. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice under section 179 of the Act to the assessee, who was one of the directors of the said concern. After considering the submissions put- forth by the assessee, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to pay-up the outstanding demand of Rs.390.39 lacs for assessment years 2008-09 in terms of section 179 of the Act. This action of the Assessing Officer was challenged by the assessee in appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds, which has been reproduced by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. The CIT(A), however, had noticed that inspite of issuance of various notices, none attended on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, she inferred that assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and hence the same was dismissed.

At the time of hearing, it was put to the Ld. Departmental Representative that the order of the CIT(A) is not in consonance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act . Section 250(6) of the Act obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for his decision. In the present case, the CIT(A) has not addressed herself to the merits of the Grounds of appeal raised before her and instead the appeal has been dismissed by merely noticing the absence of the assessee. The approach prescribed in section 250(6) of the Act is clearly missing in the present case and, therefore, in our view, the appeal has not been appropriately disposed of by the CIT(A). Thus, on this aspect itself the order of the CIT(A) is untenable and deserves to be set aside. At the time of hearing, Shri Sharad Korgaonkar, the assessee appeared in person, as also for the other assessee, Smt. Madhuri Sharad Korgaonkar and submitted that if the matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A), assessee shall appear before CIT(A) without fail.

Since the facts and circumstances in the other appeals are pari- materia to those considered by us in the appeal of Shri. Sharad Sakharam Korgaonkar in for assessment year 2008-09, our decision therein shall apply mutatis mutandis in other appeals also.

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed, as above.