Guru Builders (propreitor: Shri S N Rajkumar), Chennai V. Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals)-7, Chennai

ITA 43/CHNY/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9604 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N.R KRISHNAMOORTHY
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी महावीर ͧसंह, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी मनोज क ु मार अĒवाल, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 43/CHNY/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year:2007-08 Shri S.N. Rajkumar, Prop: M/s. Guru Builders, No.5, Periya Salai, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600083. PAN: ADNPR 5990G vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward IV(4), Chennai (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N.R Krishnamoorthy, FCA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 07.07.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in ITA No.76(T- 14)/CIT(A)-7/2014-15 dated 29.07.2019. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward IV(4), Chennai for the assessment year 2007-08 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 19.03.2014. 2 ITA No.43/Chny/2021 2. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated that the CIT(A) only dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter and there is no discussion on facts and it is a non-speaking order. He drew our attention to the relevant finding of CIT(A) in para 6, which reads as under:- “The assessment order in this case was passed on protective basis. The A.R. was requested to ascertain the status of the case where the substantive assessment order was passed. However, till date, in the last 4 years nothing is known about the same. In the last hearing posted for 25.07.2019, the ld.A.R. failed to appear. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the A.O.’s order in this case.” 3. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he could not controvert the same. 4. After hearing both the sides and going through the order of CIT(A), we noted that the CIT(A) simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. We are of the view that unless the statute authorizes a quasi judicial authority to dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication, the appellate authority has to decide the appeal and not to dismiss it for default. Probably, appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits by a speaking order. Where an appeal has been disposed off ex-parte and without adjudicating the issue, ex-parte order is not maintainable. Hence, the order passed by the CIT(A) is not 3 ITA No.43/Chny/2021 maintainable and accordingly the same is reversed. Accordingly the order of CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to her file for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7 th July, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 7 th July, 2022 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.