JIVHALA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and that the law does not empower them to do so. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The NFAC had failed to decide the appeal on its merits after the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal on the grounds of non-prosecution without deciding on merit, and if the Tribunal can set aside such an order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Present for: Assessee by: Shri Chetan Parikh (on Articleship) Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.11.2025 O R D E R
PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2020-21.
Admittedly, in this case, the Ld. Commissioner failed to decide the appeal on merit filed against the assessment order dated 08.09.2022 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside specifically in Jivhala Sahakari Patpedhi Limited view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Premjimar Arjundas (HUF) of 2013 dated 25.04.2016 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom) 614, wherein it has been held “that it is not open to the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution. Further, law does not empower to 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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.11.2025.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026