Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, despite the assessee having sought adjournments on previous occasions and missed the last hearing date. The CIT(A) had provided three opportunities for hearing.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent their case with documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without affording sufficient opportunity, and if the Tribunal should grant another opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Year: 2017-18] Rao Mohar Singh Educational Society, Vs ITO, Roshan Pura Paprawat Road, Ward Exemption 2(4), Najafgarh S.O Najafgarh, Civic Centre, Delhi Delhi-110043. PAN- AABTR0883R Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Tarun, Advocate Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A), in short], dated 16.05.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 40/10560/2019-20 for Assessment Years 2017-18, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).
Before us, ld.AR of the assessee submits that appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) ex-parte for non-prosecution. It is submitted by ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has provided only three opportunities and on first two occasions, assessee sought adjournment and on last occasion, assessee missed the date of hearing. He submits that only for one default, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was his prayer that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) with documentary evidences in support of the claim made.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) and stated that despite of providing so many opportunities, assessee failed to file any submission thus, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. A perusal of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has provided only three opportunities to the assessee and when the assessee had failed to respond on last date, it was in this backdrop that the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose-off the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte, sustaining the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders.
4.1 Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make representation only one occasion and on other two occasions, adjournment application were filed before the ld. CIT(A) thus, in the larger interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore it back again to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the assessee fails to represent his case or furnish any documentary evidences, the ld. CIT(A) is free to decide the appeal of the assessee in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.07.2025.