2019 (5) TMI 1184 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissal of appeal ex-parte by CIT-A - three times adjournments were sought and nobody attended on last day of hearing - Assessment u/s 144 - first appeal of the assessee was dismissed in ex-party order - denial of granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee - HELD THAT - Sub-section(6) of section 250 of Income-tax Act mandate the ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by setting the point of determination decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. All three conditions stipulated in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act is lacking in the impugned order. Therefore we are of the view that the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income tax Act. We have also found force in the contention of ld. AR of the assessee that despite receiving the application for adjournment on 30.06.2017 the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order by dismissing the appeal in limine. No contrary fact or law is brought to our notice by ld DR for the revenue. The assessment order was passed under section 144 and further first appeal of the assessee was also dismissed in ex-party order we deem is appropriate to restore all the grounds of the appeal to the file of Assessing Officer to decide all the issues (additions/ disallowance) afresh in accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) - Dismissal of appeal in ex-parte order without proper opportunity - Merits of additions made by AO - Non-admission of additional evidences - Non-consideration of certain additions - Dismissal without discussing merits - Restoration of all grounds to AO for fresh decision.

Analysis:
The appeal before ITAT Mumbai concerned the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the CIT(A) in an ex-parte order arising from the assessment order under section 144 for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee raised various grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. The primary contention was the lack of proper opportunity provided by the CIT(A) before dismissing the appeal. The assessee claimed to have filed an application for adjournment due to GST work pressure, but the appeal was dismissed without considering this request. The ITAT noted discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s handling of the case, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair hearing as mandated by the Income-tax Act.

The ITAT examined the conduct of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) in the case. It was observed that despite some compliance issues by the assessee, there were instances where adjournments were sought and information was provided. The ITAT found fault with the CIT(A)'s swift dismissal of the appeal without proper consideration of the merits. The ITAT highlighted the procedural lapses in the CIT(A)'s order, noting the absence of detailed reasons for the decision, as required by the Income-tax Act. The ITAT also referenced relevant case law to support its findings, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures in such matters.

In its final decision, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the restoration of all grounds to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The ITAT stressed the importance of granting the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case and instructed the Assessing Officer to re-examine all issues in accordance with the law. The ITAT also directed the assessee to cooperate fully with the Assessing Officer and not seek unnecessary adjournments. By allowing the appeal for statistical purposes, the ITAT ensured that all aspects of the case would be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer in a fair and transparent manner, underscoring the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in tax matters.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural irregularities, legal principles, and the ITAT's decision to restore the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination, ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present its case.