This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) proceedings and final order in the case of Yogendra Sharma, Noida, for the assessment year 2009-10. The case, filed under ITA 1060/DEL/2019, was decided on January 27, 2020, with the order pronounced on January 15, 2020.
Yogendra Sharma, residing in Noida, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida, dated August 31, 2018. The appeal was filed on February 11, 2019. The respondent in this case was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-3, Noida.
The appeal was heard by the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘D’, comprising Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vice President, and Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member. The hearing took place on January 15, 2020, and the order was subsequently pronounced on January 27, 2020.
The main contention of the appellant, Yogendra Sharma, was that the CIT(A) had passed the ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity for hearing and without addressing the merits of the case. The appellant argued that this was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is mandatory for the CIT(A) to decide the appeals after hearing the parties involved. The CIT(A) is required to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not have the power to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution, relying on the judgments in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another 118 ITR 461 (SC) and Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP).
In this case, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte and did not decide the appeals on their merits with a reasoned order. This constituted an infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).
Considering these procedural shortcomings, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasoned order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, Yogendra Sharma. Additionally, the appellant was directed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and participate in the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal’s decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for reasoned orders in tax litigation. By remanding the case, the ITAT ensured that the appellant would have a fair opportunity to present his case and that the CIT(A) would make a decision based on the merits of the case, supported by clear reasoning.
This case sets a precedent for the proper conduct of appellate proceedings in tax matters, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice. Taxpayers and practitioners should take note of the importance of detailed, reasoned orders and the right to a fair hearing in appellate proceedings.
The ITAT’s decision in the case of Yogendra Sharma serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and transparency in tax adjudication. It reinforces the necessity for tax authorities to follow due process and provide adequate opportunities for taxpayers to present their cases.
Income Tax Appeal of Yogendra Sharma for AY 2009-10: Tribunal Decision
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