Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 7,45,920/- and Rs. 22,377/- under sections 68 and 69C respectively. The Assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution because notices were sent to an incorrect email address.
Held
The tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without applying his mind to the issues raised in the appeal, as per the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Notices were sent to the wrong email address, thus the appeal was not prosecuted due to this error.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when the failure to prosecute is due to incorrect communication from the CIT(A)'s office.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 68, 69C, 250, 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b), 251(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH :: MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13/03/2025 impugned herein passed by the ADDL/JCIT (Appeals)-1, Chennai (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.
(Runa Vishal Shah) 2. In this case, the AO vide assessment order dated 29/12/2018 u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, has made the additions of Rs. 7,45,920/- on account of ‘sale proceeds of the shares u/sec. 68 of the Act and Rs. 22,377/- on account of ‘commission @ 30% on sale proceeds u/sec. 69C of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, with the said additions, filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Admittedly, the Assessee mentioned email address in Form 35 as vhmalde@hotmail.com, however, Ld. Commissioner issued notices to the Assessee for the appellate proceedings, at the email address vishalmalde79@gmai.com, which resulted into non-compliance by the Assessee. Therefore, Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non-prosecution and/or in limini, without going into the merits of the case, which is not permissible, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under: - “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."
Hence, this Court, by considering the fact that the notice was sent to wrong email and respectfully following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, is inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits of the case.
The Assessee has submitted following details for sending notices, communications etc.: Address : 3, Veer Building, Tagore Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai- 400054 Email ID : vishalmalde79@gmail.com Phone No. : 98339 80896
The Assessee is also directed to update the aforesaid details/latest address, telephone number, email address etc. on ITBA portal and in the record of JAO and the Ld. Commissioner.
Thus, this appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2025.