Bhupatbhai Keshubhai Gohel, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 609/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8207 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APOORVA BHARADWAJ SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

- , - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.609/AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-14 BHUPATBHAI KESHUBHAI GOHEL 17, SAGAR SOCIETY UTTAMNAGAR, MANINAGAR AHMEDABAD 380 008. PAN : AATPG 7911 P VS. ITO, WARD-6(1)(4) AHMEDABAD. ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : APOORVA BHARADWAJ, SR.DR ! '#$ % &' / DATE OF HEARING : 12/07/2019 ()* % &' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 /07/2019 +, / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD DATED 18.12.2017 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14. 2. IN GROUND NO.1 AND 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED T HAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WITHOUT ADJUDICATING EACH GROUN D ON MERIT. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED AN APPLICATION FOR LISTING THE APPEAL OUT-OF-TURN HEARING. WHILE HEARING THE ITA NO.609/AHD/2018 2 APPLICATION WE FIND THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THEREFORE, WE CONFRONTED BOTH THE PARTIES AS TO WHY THIS APPEAL BE NOT TAKEN FOR HEARING ON MERI T ITSELF. BOTH THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT OBJECT FOR TAKING UP THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. A PERUSAL OF ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD SHOW THAT APPEAL WAS LISTED ON FOUR OCCASIONS, BUT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT APPEAR. THE LD.CIT(A) THEREAFTER DISMISSED THE APP EAL IN DEFAULT FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 HAS A DIRECT BEAR ING ON THE CONTROVERSY. THEREFORE, IT IS PERTINENT TO TAKE NO TE OF THIS CLAUSE WHICH READS AS UNDER: 6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOSI NG OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POIN TS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. 5. ON PERUSAL OF SECTION WOULD INDICATE THAT THE LD .CIT(A) WAS REQUIRED TO FORMULATE POINTS IN DISPUTE, AND THEREA FTER RECORD REASONS ON SUCH POINTS. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DID N OT PARTICIPATE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESS MENT RECORD AND THEREAFTER FORMED THE POINT IN DISPUTE, AND SHO ULD HAVE RECORDED REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HER CONCLUSIONS ON T HOSE POINTS. THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO ADHERE THE MANDATORY PROCED URE, HENCE HER ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ALL ISSU ES ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION. NEEDLESS TO SAY, DURING THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSES SEE SHALL NOT INDULGE IN DILATORY TACTICS AS A STRATEGY TO PROLON G THE PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.609/AHD/2018 3 AND SHALL COOPERATE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE B EFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER