The case ITA 13/DEL/2019 involves the appellant Balvinder from Karnal, Haryana, who filed an appeal against the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Karnal, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was initially filed on January 1, 2019, and the final order was pronounced on June 4, 2019.
Balvinder, the appellant, filed this appeal against the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-1, Karnal. The appeal was directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Karnal, dated October 31, 2018. The primary contention in the appeal was the procedural lapse in handling the case at the CIT(A) level, where the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case.
The appellant raised the following grounds in the appeal:
The appeal was heard by Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member, of the Delhi “SMC” Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appellant was not represented, while the respondent was represented by Senior Departmental Representative (DR) Shri S.L. Anuragi.
The appellant, Balvinder, a resident of Village Mehmadpur, Karnal, had filed a return of income declaring a total income for the assessment year 2011-12. The ITO, Ward-1, Karnal, made certain additions to the declared income, which were contested by the appellant in the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance by the appellant, without addressing the substantive issues raised in the appeal.
Although the appellant did not appear in person or through a representative, the grounds of appeal submitted highlighted the procedural lapses in the handling of the case by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the appellate order to clearly state the points for determination and the reasons for the decision.
The Senior DR, Shri S.L. Anuragi, defended the order of the CIT(A), arguing that the appellant was given multiple opportunities to present their case but failed to appear. The DR contended that the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
The ITAT, after considering the submissions and reviewing the evidence, found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution without addressing the merits of the case. The Tribunal noted that even if the appellant did not appear, the CIT(A) was obligated to decide the appeal on merits, providing reasons for the decision as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The final order in ITA 13/DEL/2019 was pronounced on June 4, 2019, with the appeal being set aside for reconsideration due to procedural lapses. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A), Karnal, to re-decide the appeal on merits, ensuring compliance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and providing the appellant a reasonable and sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order was as follows:
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal, Dated 31.10.2018 for the A.Y. 2011-2012.
The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee has not made any appearance despite giving various opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, noted that assessee has nothing to add or submission in respect of the additions made by the A.O.
The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed the appeal of assessee.
I have heard the Learned D.R. and perused the Orders of the authorities below. After considering the submissions of the Ld. D.R., I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention points for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. Even if the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) should have to decide the appeal on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A), Karnal and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee in accordance with law, giving reasons for decision in the appellate order, by giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04th June, 2019.
Sd/-
(BHAVNESH SAINI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
This case highlights the necessity of following procedural requirements in appellate proceedings and ensuring that appeals are decided on merits, even in cases of non-prosecution by the appellant.
Appeal Reconsideration: Balvinder vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karnal – ITA 13/DEL/2019
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform