TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT remits appeal for fresh adjudication, emphasizes fair hearing for appellant</h1> The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the ... Ex-parte order passed by CIT-A - Non speaking order - HELD THAT:- The issues implicit in the statement of facts in the grounds of appeals, as extracted above, do raise specific “points for determination” calling for adjudication by the learned CIT(A). While an assessee indeed has, u/s 250(2)(a), “the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal”, such a right of the assessee-appellant cannot be put against the assessee inasmuch while the assessee-appellant is to be essentially extended a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing before an appeal can be disposed of, the non-exercise of this right by the assessee-appellant cannot be a reason enough for the CIT(A)’s not dealing with the points so raised before him on merits. The exercise of the “right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal” by “the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative condition”, under section 250(2)(a), is not a condition precedent for the disposal of appeal on merits in accordance with the scheme of Section 250(6). In our considered view, irrespective of the non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have dealt with the issues so raised by the assessee-appellant on merits and by way of speaking order and in accordance with the law. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Issues involved:1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without adjudication on merits.2. Obligation of CIT(A) to dispose of appeal on merits.3. Failure of appellant to attend hearings and submit written representations.4. Points raised in the grounds of appeal by the appellant.Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without adjudication on meritsThe appellant challenged the correctness of the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) summarily dismissing the appeal. The CIT(A) observed that despite multiple notices for hearings, the appellant failed to file submissions or seek adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents to support the dismissal due to lack of appellant's participation. However, the ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the merits of the case, disregarding the material on record and the grounds raised by the appellant. The ITAT emphasized that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits as per the statutory requirements, and the appellant's non-appearance does not absolve the CIT(A) from addressing the issues raised.Issue 2: Obligation of CIT(A) to dispose of appeal on meritsSection 250 of the Act mandates that the CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal on merits in writing, stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons. The ITAT highlighted that the CIT(A) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal without addressing the material presented by the appellant. Despite the appellant's non-participation, the CIT(A) is required to consider the statement of facts and grounds of appeal submitted by the appellant. The ITAT emphasized that the right to be heard is essential, but the CIT(A) must adjudicate on the issues raised by the appellant on merits, irrespective of the appellant's presence during the proceedings. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, directing a fair opportunity of hearing for the appellant.Issue 3: Failure of appellant to attend hearings and submit written representationsThe appellant failed to attend hearings and submit written representations during the appellate proceedings, leading to the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for lack of prosecution. The ITAT acknowledged the appellant's non-cooperation but stressed that the CIT(A) is still obligated to address the issues raised in the grounds of appeal. The ITAT concluded that the appellant's lack of participation does not absolve the CIT(A) from fulfilling its duty to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to provide the appellant with another opportunity for a fair hearing upon remitting the matter back for adjudication.Issue 4: Points raised in the grounds of appeal by the appellantThe appellant raised specific points in the grounds of appeal related to the company's liquidation, non-compliance by the official liquidator, and challenges to the additions made by the AO. The grounds of appeal highlighted issues of lack of opportunity to be heard, double taxation concerns, and the need for a fair assessment of income. The ITAT recognized the importance of these points and emphasized that the CIT(A) should have addressed these issues on merits despite the appellant's non-appearance. The ITAT ordered the matter to be reconsidered by the CIT(A) to ensure a proper adjudication of the appellant's concerns.In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the importance of addressing the appellant's grounds of appeal in a fair and reasonable manner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
