PANKAJ MANOHAR PARDHI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17.

At the outset, it is observed that there is delay of 168 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the assessee by filing a duly sworn affidavit dated 13-09-2025 has claimed that the Assessee has shifted to Dubai and thus for the last many years is not residing in India. However, during the recent trip in India, the Assessee became aware about the ongoing appeal proceedings and passing of the impugned order and therefore, the delay of 168 days has been occurred, which was neither intentional nor mala-fide but because of the aforesaid reasons.

On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the assessee.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances, specific with regard to the condonation of delay and the reasons cited for the same, which prima facie appears to be genuine, bonafide, plausible and unintentional and therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay, however, being equitable relief subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the Revenue Department under ‘other head’ within 30 days of this Order.

Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in the instant case, the AO vide Assessment Order dated 12.12.2023 under Section 147 r/w. Section 14 of the Act has made additions of Rs. 54,55,800/- and Rs. 3,34,43,648/- under Section 69-A of the Act, against which the assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the same for non-appearance of the Assessee/non-prosecution by the Assessee, in limine but not on the merits of the case and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, specifically in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that in fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The powers of the CIT(A) is co- terminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires 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. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act."

Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice it to say while affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant submissions and documents before the Ld. Commissioner. It is clarified that in case of default, the assessee shall not entitled for any leniency.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.