M V K ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MADHAPUR vs. ITO., WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 354/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was not decided on merits. Substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) should have decided the matter on merits even in their absence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and if an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 09/05/2024

आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 06/02/2024 passed by the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Pune, in the case of MVK Energy Private Limited (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the time of hearing, it is the submission on behalf of the assessee that the learned CIT(A) disposed-of the appeal ex-parte observing that various notices under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) were issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee make any written submissions.

3.

Learned AR also submitted that even otherwise also the learned CIT(A) could have referred to the facts and dispose-of the matter on merits so as to have effective assistance to the higher appellate fora. He submitted that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to effectively prosecute the appeal, by restoring the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A).

4.

Though the learned DR vehemently opposed the request of the assessee, 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 in limine.

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. If the request of the learned AR is granted, affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by submitting the evidences, the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits. When the technicalities are pitted against the delivery of substantial justice, the former must give way to the latter.

7.

With this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to pass an order in compliance with the provisions under section 250(6) of the Act. I direct the assessee to co-operate with the First Appellate Authority in getting the matters disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I order accordingly.

8.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →