LATE BHUPENDRA KANTILAL DESAI (LEGAL HEIR OS VIRENDRA BHUPENDRA DESAI),MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 22(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appellant, Late Shri Bhupendra Kantilal Desai (Legal Heir of appellant Shri Virendra Bhupendra Desai) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income 2 Late Shri Bhupendra Kantilal Desai (Legal Heir of appellant Shri Virendra Bhupendra Desai) Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2016-17 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in passing the impugned Order dated 15 March,2023 Ex-parte.

The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant here had expired when the several notices referred to in the order dated 15th March,2023 were issued, and that nobody pursued the matter thereafter so as to take notice of receipt of several notices under section 142,143 etc. Relief claimed: in Ground No.s 1 & 2. The impugned order be set aside and a fresh opportunity of being heard be granted. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts in confirming the action of the AO in denying exemption from Long Term Capital Gains available on facts under s.54 or s.54F 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts in not considering the facts and issues arising therefrom in the Assessment Order dated 26 December,2018 as discussed by the AO. 5. Without prejudice to the above Grounds, learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering other Grounds of Appeal which arose from the Assessment Order and were required to be disposed of. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or modify the ground(s) of appeal”

We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto.

Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed for want of non prosecution by the assessee on the ground that despite numerous notices assessee has not responded nor filed written submissions/ information/ documents. It is settled principle of law that when appeal is filed before the Ld. CIT(A) by raising different issues the same is to be disposed of on merits by applying his mind even if the assessee does not appear and the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non prosecution by the assessee as has been held by Honourable Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay). 4 Late Shri Bhupendra Kantilal Desai (Legal Heir of appellant Shri Virendra Bhupendra Desai) 6. To decide the issues raised by the assessee once for all and to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merits after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.