AMIT AVINASH BHOSALE,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 01.06.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income from the business of providing consultancy services to the builders. The return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 30.10.2009 disclosing total income of Rs.17,04,26,110/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’ for short) vide order dated 16.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) at a total income of Rs.17,12,02,902/- after making disallowance of Rs.7,76,789/- under the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ for short) rejecting the contention of the appellant that only an expenditure of Rs.77,700/- (being 10% of the total income) was incurred to earn the exempt income of Rs.1,11,97,098/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above disallowance, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dismissed the appeal without admitting the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal by the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 5. Even before us when the appeal was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice. After hearing the ld. Sr. CIT-DR, we proceed to dispose of this matter. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) while passing the ex-parte order had not adjudicated the issue raised in appeal on merits, instead the ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal is not admitted for want of prosecution of appeal. This approach of the ld. CIT(A) is totally unreasonable and unjustified. The ld. CIT(A) fell in serious error by not admitting the appeal for non-prosecution. The settled positions of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) had fell into serious error by holding that the appeal is not admitted for non-prosecution of appeal. Therefore, we vacate this finding of the ld. CIT(A).