OJASVI MEDIA MATRIX PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. AO , NFAC DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5210/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 October 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits is not permissible as per law and the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution without touching the merits of the case. The NFAC's order was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed solely on grounds of non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case by the CIT(A)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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

For Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld. Sr.D.R
Hearing: 09.10.2025Pronounced: 09.10.2025

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 23/06/2025 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2022-23.

(Ojasvi Media Matrix Pvt. Ltd.) 2. In this case, admittedly, Ld. Commissioner due to non- prosecution, dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of AO, dated 07/03/2024, u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, in limine, without touching 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."

3.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and by respectfully following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, this 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, however subject to deposit of Rs. 1,100/- (Rupees One Thousand and One Hundred only) in the Revenue Department under the ‘other head’, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is accordingly, remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for adjudication afresh in the above terms.

4.

The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant submissions/ documents, as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2025.

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →