M/s. Rose Matches Pvt. Ltd., Kovilpatti V. DCIT Circle I, , Tuticorin

ITA 480/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9070 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी) ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI Įी महावीर ͧसंह, उपाÚय¢ के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 480/CHNY/2020 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Rose Matches Pvt.Ltd., “Sri Ramaiah Buildings” 43, Main Road, Kovilpatti – 628501. PAN : AABCR 3125M v. The DCIT, Circle -1, 19-A, W.G.C. Road, Income Tax Office, Tuticorin. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : None ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B. Sajive, JCIT स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, in ITA No.005/2016-17 vide order dated 31.12.2019. The Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-1, Tuticorin for the assessment year 2013-14 vide order dated 25.02.2016 U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2 I.T.A. No.480/Chny/2020 2. At the outset, none is present from assessee’s side but seeing the order of CIT(A), which is ex-parte order, I proceeded to decide the appeal. From the order of CIT(A), I noticed that he has not at all discussed about the facts of the case on merits. The relevant adjudication by CIT(A) in Para 5 reads as under: “5. ............ ................. During the course of the present appellate proceedings, the appellant company has chosen not to comply with the hearing notices. The appellant company had not submitted any documentary evidence to controvert the findings recorded in the assessment order. It is further observed that the authorized representative of the assessee had no objection to such addition. In absence of any documentary evidence to controvert the findings made by the Assessing Officer, the grounds taken in respect of this issue, remain unsubstantiated, and are hence dismissed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue is confirmed.” The CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without discussing the issue on merits. When these facts were confronted to ld. senior Department Representative, he could not controvert the above stated position. 4. After hearing ld. senior DR and going through the case records as noted above, I’m of the view that the CIT(A) is a quasi judicial authority and in the statute of Income Tax Act, 3 I.T.A. No.480/Chny/2020 CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication, but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits. The appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default but he is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee. Hence, dismissal for default by CIT(A) is bad in law and accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A). The appeal is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I order accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 9 th November, 2021 at Chennai. Sd/- (महावीर ͧसंह ) (Mahavir Singh) उपाÚय¢ /Vice President चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 9 th November, 2021 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.