Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of non-prosecution. The assessee contended that they had filed submissions physically, but the appeal was transferred to e-appeals, and subsequent notices were not received due to business operation changes. The CIT(A) allegedly failed to consider the filed submissions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) proceeded on an incorrect understanding that no submissions were filed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed adjudication of the appeal afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without properly considering the assessee's submissions and opportunity for hearing, especially after transfer to the e-appeal scheme.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 234A, 234B, 234C, 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 12.12.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
1. 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 28/08/2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Ahmedabad, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 24/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“GOA No.1 Opportunity of Hearing: Assessment Year 2012-2013 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC not given proper opportunity of hearing before dismissing the said appeal. The said appeal was filed on 21/01/2020 vide Form 35 bearing acknowledgment no 293909031210120. No physical notices have been served upon the assessee. Thereafter the first notice of hearing was issued on the Portal on 18.02.2020, second notice directly after 2.5 years on 03/08/2022 and third one again after 2 years on 07/11/2024. All these notices were issued on the portal. “GOA No.2 Addition of LTCG of Rs.32,69,920/-: The Ld.CIT(A) not justified in confirming the addition of LTCG for Rs.32,69,920/- without considering the facts that possession of the land was not with on assessee. When title/ownership to land was not with assessee then how assessee sales the land. The Ld. CIT(A) not considered the fact that the Ld. ITO WD 7(3)(3) has not granted opportunity for cross examination of the owner who refused to accept the notice u/s. 133(6). It’s mean that original owner still available on last know address to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the facts that reply from M/s.CBS Infrastructure received from the official email of the company. Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the bank statement of the assessee submitted during assessment proceedings wherein there’s no receipt entry of sales considered. “GOA No.3 Interest U/s.234A, 234B, 234C: The Ld. ITO WARD has levied interest U/s.234A, 234B, 234C of Income Tax Act 1961 on taxes.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the appeal was preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order was dismissed by Learned CIT(A) on the ground of non-prosecution. It was submitted that the Assessee had filed the appeal in physical form 2 Assessment Year 2012-2013 and had made submissions before the Learned CIT(A). However, subsequently, the appeal was transferred to the CIT(A) as per e-appeals scheme 2023 (Notification No.33/2023 F.No.370142/10/2023-TPL dated 29/05/2023). While disposing off the appeal, Learned CIT(A) had failed to consider the submissions filed by the Assessee in physical form. It was further submitted that notice dated 23/10/2024, 16/12/2024 and 12/08/2025 issued by the Learned CIT(A) could not be responded since the same were not received by the Assessee at the registered address. The aforesaid e- notice were sent over email and therefore, went unattended on account of discontinuing of business operations.
Per contra, Learned Departmental Representative submitted that notices were issued by the Learned CIT(A) which were not responded to by the Assessee. It was submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has specifically recorded that the Assessee had failed to prosecute the appeal and therefore, there was not infirmity in the dismissal order passed by the Learned CIT(A).
We have given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and have perused the material on record including the paper book filed by the Assessee which shows that submissions were filed by the Assessee before the Learned CIT(A) in physical form on 27/12/2020/ On perusal of the first paragraph of the order impugned we find that the same supports the submissions made on behalf of the Assessee that the appeal against the assessment order was filed in physical form before the same was transferred under E-appeal Scheme 2023 to the Learned CIT(A). Perusal of order passed by the Learned CIT(A) shows that the Learned CIT(A) has proceeded on the incorrect understanding that no submissions whatsoever were filed by the Assessee and the Assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the Order, dated 28/08/2025, passed 3 Assessment Year 2012-2013 by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the appeal preferred by the Assessee afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed co-operate in the appellate proceedings and file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the CIT(A). The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal. In case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file details/documents/submission in response to notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the issues on merits on the basis of material on record. In terms of the aforesaid and without returning any findings on merits, Grounds No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and Ground No. 2 & 3 are dismissed as having being rendered academic on account of setting aside of the impugned order.
In terms of above, the present appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.