SHALIN STAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that despite 7. three notices the Appellant had failed to provide any documents/details to substantiate the claim and therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material 8. on record. We note that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding as under: “5 In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis of material available on record. Bare perusal of the facts shows that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. The appellant has jeopardized his case by not responding despite several opportunities that were provided. Sufficient opportunities were provided to the appellant (vide the Notices referred supra) to come up with the ground-wise written submissions alongwith documentary evidence in support of his contentions raised vide Grounds of Appeal & the Statement of Facts. However, there has been total non- compliance to all the Notices issued. So, his

ITA No. 3154/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

contentions raised vide Grounds of Appeal & the Statement of Facts cannot be taken on face value. Therefore, the above contentions of the appellant are without merit & are hereby rejected.” (Emphasis Supplied) On perusal of above, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the 9. appeal holding that the contentions raised by the Appellant in the grounds of appeal and statement of facts were not supported by submissions and documentary evidence without dealing with specific factual and legal grounds raised by the Appellant. Thus, in effect, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by the Appellant which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF): [2016] 240 Taxman 133 (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay)[25-04-2016] wherein it has been held that the provisions of the Act do not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal preferred by an assessee on account of non-prosecution. On the other hand, the Appellant has also failed to comply with the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A). However, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us has explained the circumstances and the reason for non- compliance of notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A) which we are inclined to accept. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the present case, subject to payment of cost of INR 5,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund or National Disaster Response Fund within seven days of the receipt of this order, we set aside the order, dated 17/08/2023, passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication as per law after granting Appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes while all

ITA No. 3154/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

the other grounds/contentions raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous at this stage.

In result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 10.

Order pronounced on 29.12.2023.

Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Rahul Chaudhary) Accountant Member Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 29.12.2023 Alindra, PS

ITA No. 3154/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file.

आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai