Case Number: ITA 439/DEL/2019
Appellant: Hardeep Singh, Karnal
Respondent: ITO, Ward-2, Karnal
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Case Filed On: 2019-01-21
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2019-06-04
Pronounced On: 2019-06-04
Hardeep Singh, a resident of Karnal, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Karnal, dated 15th November 2018, for the assessment year 2015-16. The case was heard by the Delhi ‘SMC’ Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) with Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member, presiding. The appellant was represented by none, while the respondent was represented by Shri S.L. Anuragi, Senior DR.
The CIT(A) noted that the appellant did not make any appearance despite multiple opportunities provided. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, concluding that the appellant had no additional submissions regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO).
Upon reviewing the case, the ITAT observed that the CIT(A) did not follow the proper procedure as outlined in Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates the CIT(A) to mention points for determination and provide reasons for the decision in the appellate order. Even in the absence of the appellant’s appearance, the CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the appeal on its merits, providing detailed reasons for the decision.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without delving into the merits of the case or providing the necessary reasoning in the appellate order. Consequently, the ITAT concluded that the order could not be upheld in law.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A), Karnal, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) with instructions to reconsider the appeal on its merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide detailed reasons for the decision in the appellate order and ensure that the appellant is given reasonable and sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The appeal by Hardeep Singh against the order of the CIT(A), Karnal, was allowed for statistical purposes. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to re-evaluate the appeal in accordance with the law, ensuring that detailed reasons for the decision are provided and the appellant is given a fair opportunity to present his case. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 4th June 2019 in the presence of both parties.
This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in appellate proceedings. It underscores the obligation of the CIT(A) to provide detailed reasoning for decisions and ensure that appeals are adjudicated on their merits, even in cases of non-appearance by the appellant.
The ruling in this case sets a precedent for future cases where appeals are dismissed due to non-prosecution. It reinforces the requirement for detailed reasoning in appellate orders and ensures that appeals are decided based on their merits, promoting procedural fairness and transparency in the appellate process.
The case of Hardeep Singh vs. ITO, Ward-2, Karnal, highlights the importance of procedural adherence and detailed reasoning in appellate decisions. The ITAT’s decision to remand the case for reconsideration ensures that justice is served by providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present his case and ensuring that the appeal is decided on its merits.
Hardeep Singh vs ITO: Reconsideration of Dismissal Due to Non-Prosecution – ITA 439/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