SHRI ARUP BIKASH MAITY,MIDNAPORE vs. ITO, WARD - 4, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 353/KOL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 November 2015AY 2003-042 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated any grounds of appeal and had passed a cryptic, non-speaking order. Therefore, the ITAT quashed the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance or adjournment requests. The ITAT heard the matter ex parte as the revenue sought an adjournment on a frivolous ground.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. Whether the CIT(A)'s order was a speaking and reasoned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254,Section 251,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM]

Hearing: 23.11.2015Pronounced: 23.11.2015

ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXIII, Kolkata in Appeal No.111/CIT(A)-XXXIII/Ward-4,Hal/08-09 dated 18.06.2010. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-4, Haldia, u/s. 254/251/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2003-04 vide its order dated 28.11.2008.

2.

We have heard this matter ex parte. None is present for revenue or from the assessee. Revenue has filed a petition for adjournment asking for adjournment in twenty matters out of twenty three totally fixed in the cause list. The reason given by revenue in its petition dated 23.11.2015 reads as under: “I am directed to request to the Hon’ble “C” Bench, ITAT, Kolkata that Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. (DR) will not be able to represent the above mentioned cases since he is going on a visit to Burdwan for official work on 23rd November, 2015. Accordingly, I am directed to request that the case may kindly be adjourned for a later date as per the convenience of the Hon’ble Bench.” We find that the revenue is seeking adjournment on frivolous ground and this is a regular feature. Hence, without giving adjournment, this being a small case, very old matter and appeal is pending since 2011, we proceeded to decide it ex parte.

3.

At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal by assessee is against the order of CIT(A) and CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution by observing in para 3 as under:

2 Shri Arup Bikash Maity, AY 2003-04 “Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appellant filed an appeal in the office of the undersigned on 05.01.09. Thereafter appeal was fixed for hearing on 14.12.09, 18.01.10, 08.04.10, 26.04.10, 29.05.10 and finally on 01.06.10. Either none appeared or adjournment was sought. No submissions have been made. From the conduct of the appellant it appears that he is not interested in pursuing his appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.”

4. We have gone through the order of CIT(A) and seen that none of the grounds have adjudicated by CIT(A) in his appellate order. We also find that the orders of CIT(A) are cryptic one and non-speaking. There is no iota of merits discussed in the orders by CIT(A). The duty of the CIT(A) is to pass a speaking order after controverting all the facts given by assessee and decide the issue with reasons. Hence, we quash the order of CIT(A) and remit the appeal back to his file for fresh adjudication with the above direction. We order accordingly. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

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

6.

Order is pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 23rd November, 2015 Jd. Sr. P.S Copy of the order forwarded to: APPELLANT – Shri Arup Bikash Maity, Prop. M/s. New Arup 1. Distributors, Kasba, Egra, Purba Medinipur, Pin 721602 Respondent – ITO, Ward-4, Haldia. 2 The CIT(A), Kolkata 3.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →