SHRI RAMESHWER PATIDAR ,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 191/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 September 2023AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with hearing notices. The CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment order passed ex-parte by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in compliance with Section 250(6) and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 144

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 Milind Wadhwani, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.09.2023Pronounced: 22.09.2023

आदेश / O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 20.03.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 13.12.2019 passed by learned ITO, Dhar [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case-records perused. Page 1 of 3

Shri Rameshwar Patidar, Kukshi vs. ITO Dhar, I.T.A.No. 191/Ind/2023 – A.Y. 2017-18 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 assessee’s appeal merely confirming the assessment-order, although due to non-compliance by assessee of the notice of hearing issued 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.

4.

Ld. DR fairly agrees for remand but drew our attention to assessment- order and submits that the AO has passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 due to non-compliances by assessee. Therefore, it would be better to remand this case to AO instead of CIT(A). Ld. DR further prayed to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

5.

In view of above 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 AO for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Shri Rameshwar Patidar, Kukshi vs. ITO Dhar, I.T.A.No. 191/Ind/2023 – A.Y. 2017-18 6. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →