JIVHALA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5583/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 November 2025AY 2020-2021Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

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?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Parikh (on Articleship)
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.11.2025Pronounced: 03.11.2025

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:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →