What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution without complying with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear before the ITAT for the hearing, despite being served with notices. The Revenue was represented by the Sr. DR.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) complied with Section 250(6) of the Act while dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, Mandideep vs ITO | ITAT Indore 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

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

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr DR

Hearing: 04.09.2023Pronounced: 05.09.2023

आदेश / O R D E R

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

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 22.11.2017 passed by learned ITO, Raisen [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment- Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal.

None appeared for assessee when the case is called. The case was passed over and once again taken up at the end of board but still nobody Page 1 of 3

Ved Prakash Sharma,Mandideep vs. ITO Raisen appeared nor any adjournment request filed. On perusal of case-file, it is found that the notice was served upon assessee by post. Notice through e- mail was also served upon assessee’s counsel as per report given by Bench Clerk. Ld. DR was ready to represent the revenue. In this situation, the hearing is proceeded and the case is being disposed of ex-parte assessee on the basis of material held on record and after considering the revenue’s submissions.

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. When the Bench proposed this, Ld. DR fairly agrees 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 Ved Prakash Sharma,Mandideep vs. ITO Raisen assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be entitled to take an appropriate decision.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2023.

SHRI VED PRAKASH SHARMA,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ITO, RAISEN, RAISEN

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments