TEBMA SHIYPARDS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 891/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 July 2015AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without first identifying and communicating any defects to the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) is expected to decide the appeal on its merits after giving a reasonable opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) for non-prosecution without pointing out any defects. The assessee argued that the CIT(Appeals) should have disposed of the appeal on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without pointing out defects and giving an opportunity to rectify them.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 11.06.2015Pronounced: 03.07.2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai, dated 16.03.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2005-06.

2.

Ms. K. Hemalatha, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (38 ITD 320). The Ld. representative submitted that in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal found that the appeal was defective, therefore, it was dismissed as unadmitted. However, in this case, the CIT(Appeals) has not found any defect. Merely because the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(Appeals), it will not empower the CIT(Appeals) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. According to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) is expected to dispose the appeal on merit.

3.

We have heard Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. As pointed out by the Ld. representative for the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) has not pointed out any defect in the appeal. Moreover, it is a statutory appeal filed before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is expected to dispose the same on merit. If at all there is any defect, it is the duty of the CIT(Appeals) to bring it to the notice of the assessee by way of defect memo and after giving a reasonable opportunity, the CIT(Appeals) may pass an order. When the appeal is filed and no 3 defect is pointed out, the CIT(Appeals) is expected to dispose the same on merit. Therefore, dismissal of the appeal for non- prosecution relying upon the decision of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to his file. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to consider the appeal of the assessee on merit and pass a speaking order on the basis of the grounds raised before him.

4.

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

Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2015 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →