SHRI KIRAN YASHWANT LATKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(13)(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 509/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach unreasonable and unjustified for not adjudicating the appeal on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed by the AO by adding a difference in salary income. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action for non-prosecution, as the assessee could not appear before them.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the appeal on merits and instead confirming the AO's order for non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 18.04.2024Pronounced: 19.04.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Addl. JCIT(A)-3, Delhi dated 19.01.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual who filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 13.07.2017 declaring income of Rs.17,57,980/-. Thereafter, the appellant filed revised return on 28.07.2019 declaring same income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice u/s.143(2) was issued. The Assessing Officer observed that the appellant received total gross salary of Rs.26,93,166/- as against Rs.25,16,539/- shown in Form 16. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 12.12.2019 adding the difference amount of salary of Rs.1,76,627/-, thus determined the total income of the appellant at Rs.24,23,520/-.

3.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order has confirmed the action of the AO for non-prosecution.

4.

The ld. Authorised Representative submits that the appellant could not cause any appearance before the CIT(A) and the same was beyond his control. He therefore prayed to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to represent his case before the CIT(A) effectively.

5.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. I find that the approach of the ld.CIT(A) is totally unreasonable and unjustified. In the present case, the CIT(A) fell in serious error by not adjudicating the issue in appeal on merits.

The settled position of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. The findings of the CIT(A) are not based on the material on record, which means that the CIT(A) had not gone into the merits of the issue in appeal. Therefore, considering the facts in entirety, I vacate the finding of the CIT(A). In the circumstances, I remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) and direct to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of April, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →