9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 146 - AT - Income TaxDismissal of appeal - CIT(A) relied on case of CIT vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court - Held that - The procedure to be followed by the CIT(A) while disposing the appeals is set out in section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Dismissal of the appeal relying upon the decision of Multi Plan and Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (Supra) does not meet the statutory requirements. The impugned order does not fulfill the requirements of the Act. Notwithstanding the fact that the assessee was seeking adjournments even in those facts and circumstances the statutory duty caste upon the First Appellate Authority cannot be abdicated as the said authority is mandatorily required to decide the appeal as directed by the Statute. The impugned order accordingly is set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal in accordance with law. -Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Appeal remanded by High Court for hearing on merits. 2. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-attendance and lack of prosecution. 3. Assessment order additions challenged before CIT(A) and subsequent dismissal. 4. Compliance with statutory requirements by CIT(A) in disposing of appeals. Issue 1: Appeal remanded by High Court for hearing on merits The appeal was remanded back to the Tribunal by the High Court to hear the assessee's appeal on merits. The initial appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order for the 2005-06 assessment year. The ITAT decided in favor of the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order, which led to the High Court remanding the matter back to the ITAT. Despite adjournments sought by the assessee, the hearing proceeded ex-parte, and the grounds raised by the appellant were outlined. Issue 2: Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-attendance and lack of prosecution The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-attendance and lack of prosecution. The appellant failed to provide any arguments or evidence despite repeated notices. The assessment order had made several additions, totaling to a significant amount, which the CIT(A) upheld due to the appellant's failure to participate in the proceedings. Issue 3: Assessment order additions challenged before CIT(A) and subsequent dismissal The assessment order additions, totaling to a substantial figure, were challenged before the CIT(A). However, due to the appellant's non-participation and lack of submissions, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) emphasized the lack of evidence or explanations provided by the appellant during both the assessment and appellate proceedings. Issue 4: Compliance with statutory requirements by CIT(A) in disposing of appeals The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not meet the statutory requirements in disposing of the appeals. Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 outlines the procedure to be followed by the CIT(A) while deciding appeals. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) failed to set out the points for determination or provide reasons for the decision, as mandated by the statute. The dismissal of the appeal based on previous judgments was deemed insufficient to meet the statutory requirements. In conclusion, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal in accordance with the law, affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory requirements in disposing of appeals.
|
