Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 M/s Singh Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 1106 Indra Prakash Building, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(4), New Delhi
 Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) not sustainable if reason not specified: ITAT
 Notice issued u/s 143(2) to be served upon the assessee within six months: ITAT
 Addition for Unexplained Cash Credit justified in respect of Unexplained Creditors shown as Bogus: ITAT
 Input Service Tax Credit is deductible u/s.37(1) when such Input Tax Credit is written off in Books of Accounts: ITAT
 ITAT allows Deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) on Account of Donation
 ITAT can t dismiss application merely on the basis of seeking frequent adjournments: Delhi High Court
 Society registered outside India not eligible for Income Tax Exemption: ITAT
 ITAT stays recovery of outstanding Tax Arrears to the tune of Rs.1260.56 Crores against Google India
 ITAT confirms disallowance of Advertisement Expenses relating to Construction of Swimming Pool Setback to Himalaya
 ITAT grants relief to Atos India Assessment framed for Non-Existent Authority is null & Void
 Capital Gain Deduction claim can be invoked during Re-Assessment if Assessee failed to file Returns: ITAT
 Vodafone Idea Limited is not required to Deduct Tax u/s 194H on Prepaid SIM Cards: ITAT
 Activities performed in ‘Virtual Classrooms’ also comes under the Definition of ‘Education’: ITAT grants relief to NIIT Foundation
 Scrutiny Assessment without Notice is Defective in Law: ITAT

ITAT can t dismiss application merely on the basis of seeking frequent adjournments: Delhi High Court
December, 29th 2020

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT can not dismiss an application merely on the basis of seeking frequent adjournments.

The Petitioner, M/s Kalra Papers Private Limited filed its Return of Income. Based on the survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other materials, an assessment order was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, making additions to Petitioner’s income.

The Petitioner filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the appeal was decided in favour of the Petitioner, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Revenue, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the ITAT said appeal was heard ex-parte and finally allowed in favour of the Revenue.

 

The Petitioner filed the Miscellaneous Application before the ITAT, under Section 254(2) of the Act, read with Rule 25 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order and restoration of the appeal.

Whilst the Miscellaneous Application was pending, the Petitioner also filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act before this High Court and assailed the order.

However, as the application was still pending before the ITAT, the Court disposed of the said appeal, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach this Court in the event the Miscellaneous Application was not accepted by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the ITAT rejected the Miscellaneous Application.

Mr. Salil Kapoor, the counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is unjust, illegal, bad in law, and contrary to principles of natural justice.

Mr. Kapoor has contended that the Petitioner had sufficient reasons and reasonable cause for non-appearance. In the affidavit, it was specifically stated that the non-appearance was on account of illness of the counsel.

The Counsel also strongly urged that the Petitioner is interested to take recourse to the amnesty scheme ‘Vivad Se Vishwas 2020’. He states that in the event the Court were to allow the present petition and restore the appeal to its original number, Petitioner undertakes to apply under the said scheme.

He submits that the entire endeavour is to put a quietus to the present dispute and that the Petitioner has every intention to settle the outstanding dues by taking benefit of the scheme.

 

The division judge bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the ITAT when the appeal was taken up for hearing. Further, the Tribunal has taken into consideration such reasons which were not germane for deciding the Miscellaneous Application. The sufficiency of the cause, which was the only factor to be examined, has been ignored by the Tribunal. If sufficient cause is shown, the Tribunal is obligated to consider the same and make an order setting aside the ex-parte order, irrespective of the fact that the final order decided the appeal on merits.

“We are also persuaded to allow the petition, in view of the undertaking given by the Petitioner that it would apply under the ‘Vivad Se Vishwas’ Scheme in the event the appeal is restored to its original number. The Petitioner’s undertaking is taken on record and it shall be held bound by the same,” the court said.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting