Arati Behera, Cuttack V. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), Cuttack

ITA 214/CTK/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Arati Behera against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which was dated 25.5.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) had passed an exparte order without providing an opportunity to the assessee, which was argued to be a gross violation of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s initial dismissal of the appeal was based on the precedent set by the Delhi ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., which was followed without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires a speaking order that addresses the points raised in the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300347 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND Arati Behera, At: Ranihat PO: Buxi Bazar, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, 24/1053191331(1) 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without giving an opportunity to the assessee, which is gross violation of natural justice. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK (Through virtual hearing) BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.214/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arati Behera, At: Ranihat PO: Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Vs. DCIT, ASMNT Circle 2(1), Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AERPM 0403 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Date of Hearing : 21/08 Date of Pronouncement : 21/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 25.5.2023 in Appeal No.ITBA 24/1053191331(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without giving an opportunity to the assessee, which is gross violation of natural justice. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not Page1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, ASMNT Circle 2(1), Respondent) P.R.Mohanty, AR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 8/2023 /08/2023 inst the order of the ld ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without giving an opportunity to the assessee, which is gross violation of natural justice. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not also passed the ITA No.214/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page2 | 3 order on merits. He prayed that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would assist the ld CIT(A) in disposal of the appeal. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that several opportunities have been provided by the ld CIT(A) as is evident from the impugned order. Hence, no purpose would be served if the matter is restored to the file of the ld CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P)Ltd., 38 ITD 320 and other decisions as the assessee failed to appear before him without considering the issue on merits. We observe that the provisions of section 250(6) are mandatory and it is obligatory for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and reasons for such decisions. The provisions of section 250(6) provide that the appellate order of Commissioner (A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decision. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. In the instant case, vide the impugned order, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without considering the facts and grounds raised by the assessee following the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Multiplan ITA No.214/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page3 | 3 (India)Ltd. (supra) and similar decisions. Before us, ld AR has prayed that one more opportunity is granted to substantiate its case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the appeal to his file and direct him to dispose of the appeal of the assessee afresh with a speaking order after allowing proper opportunity to the assessee in accordance with law. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 21/08/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Arati Behera, At: Ranihat PO: Buxi Bazar, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: DCIT, ASMNT Circle 2(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//