MAPAAEX REMEDIES (P) LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT /ACIT -2(I), BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 18/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 September 2023Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) by not providing a reasoned order. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when it dismissed the appeal without a reasoned order, despite the assessee's non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. and Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.09.2023Pronounced: 26.09.2023

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 26.12.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.12.2019 passed by learned ACIT- 2(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal.

MAPAEX REMEDIES P. LTD. V. ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal - AY 2012-13 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case-records perused.

3.

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “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.”. We observe that in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal, although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing fixed by Ld. CIT(A), but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for remand to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Ld. DR fairly agrees to this but prays to direct the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. In view of this and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

MAPAEX REMEDIES P. LTD. V. ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal - AY 2012-13

4.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →