AVTAR KUKREJA,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 214/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 February 2023AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The reliance on the 'Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd.' case was deemed outdated.

What were the facts?

A search operation led to an assessment order for AY 2007-08. For AY 2008-09, the assessee filed a return, but the assessment order significantly increased the income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. Whether the dismissal was proper when circumstances beyond the assessee's control prevented appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh
Hearing: 01.02.2023

This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) Faridabad, dated 31.10.2012.

2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal :-

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in upholding an addition of Rs. 7,20,38,384/- on account of unexplained deposits in appellant's bank account.

2.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was further not justified in "dismissing the appeal as un-admitted".

3. The observation of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal" is unfounded, uncalled for and incorrect.

4.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there were circumstances beyond the control of appellant due to which the appellant could not appear before him.

5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not to have dismissed the appeal, instead, he should have decided the appeal on merits and material available on records. Moreover, he should have given weightage and credence to the evidence already submitted.

6. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is biased, prejudiced, bad in law, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation was conducted at the residence of the assessee on 07/09/2006. The assessment order for Assessment Year 2007-08 was passed by ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad on 30/12/2008 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,25,26,590/- which included addition of Rs. 93,91,969/- on account of unexplained deposit in various bank accounts of the assessee. The assessee did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09, hence, the notice /s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In compliance of the said notice, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs.29,44,160/- showing income under heads of business, house property, long term capital gain and other sources. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny and assessment order came to be passed on 30/12/2010 u/s 143(3) of the Act, by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,49,82,550/-.

4. As against the assessment order dated 30/12/2010, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). During the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A), the representative of the assessee appeared and sought adjournments on several occasions and the Ld.CIT(A) had also given last and final opportunities to the assessee but the assessee has not responded to the notices. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 31/10/2012 by relying on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (381 ITD 320).

5.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 31/10/2012 the assessee is before this Tribunal on the grounds mentioned above.

6.

None appeared for the assessee even after issuing several notices. By considering the issue involved in the appeal, we deem it fit to hear the Ld. DR and decide the matter.

7.

Heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gave out thoughtful consideration. The Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal has not decided the issue involved in the appeal on merits. The appeal has been dismissed as ‘un-admitted’ since the assessee or the representative of the assessee had not prosecuted the appeal. The ratio relied by the CIT(A) is of Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is no more a good law and it is settled position that the Revenue Authority and the even the Tribunal has to decide the appeal on merit and not suppose to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution without deciding the appeal on merit. Therefore, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on merit and also direct the assessee to appear and cooperate with the appeal proceedings for early disposal of the Appeal. Ordered accordingly.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06TH FEBRUARY, 2023.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →