NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

Date of Hearing – 04/12/2025 Date of Order - 09/12/2025

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 19/09/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2023-24.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ("CIT(A)"), the Appellant begs to prefer the present appeal on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other:

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the assessment order dated 20.03.2025 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, in limine for non-prosecution, without adjudicating upon the merits of the case.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution when a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 250(6) and Section 250(4), the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution when Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act categorically require the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him.

4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 42,46,00,023 to the income returned by the Appellant, made by the Assessing Officer.

5. That in the facts and cireumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the addition of interest income amounting to Rs. 24,20,18,376 made by the Assessing Officer, is interest accrued but not received by the Appellant.

6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 18,25,81,647 made by the Assessing Officer, is the accumulation to the extent of 15% of income for the year under consideration u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act.

7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 18,25,81,647 being the accumulation to the extent of 15% of income for the year under consideration u/s 11(1)(a), was made by the Assessing Officer without issuing any show-cause notice and thus, violating Section 144B(1)(xii) and principles of natural justice.

8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 18,25,81,647 being the accumulation to the extent of 15% of income for the year under consideration u/s 11(1)(a), was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the Appellant was required to invest this amount in the prescribed modes u/s 11(5) of the Act whereas there is no such requirement in law.

9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the disallowance of Rs. 18,25,81,647 being the accumulation to the extent of 15% of income for the year under consideration u/s 11(1)(a), was made by the Assessing Officer without following the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in ACIT v. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust [1995] 216 ITR 697 (SC).”

3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to the non- appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. We further find that the learned CIT(A) merely on the basis of non-compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. In CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits. We further direct that no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the hearing dates as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.