9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led position of law. It is a trite law that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the merits of the issue in appeal, even in the case of an ex-parte order. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [ 2016 (5) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] wherein it was held that CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. We deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A) for de novo disposal of the issue in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. - Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Dhruvil Mishra For the Revenue : Shri Kailash Mangal ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon the appellant company. To fortify our view, we would like to make a reference to a decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P H), wherein the Hon ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : 7 . We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner and they will also allow the petitioner to appear personally for the purpose and pass a speaking order independent of the order passed earlier by them on January 16,2023. The same shall be done expeditiously provided the petitioner file his reply within a period of three weeks. In view of the above legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has not properly served the notice of hearing to the appellant company. 6. Furthermore, we find the ld. CIT(A) without discussing anything on merits of the controversy of the addition made on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment, simply dismissed the appeal in limine, which is contrary to settled position of law. It is a trite law that the CIT(A) should have dealt with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
