Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into the merits, citing non-compliance and lack of substantiation by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to decide the appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits of the case, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147, 69C, 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b), 251(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH :: MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY&
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28/01/2025 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. 2009-10.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 30/03/2015 u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, has made the additions of Rs. 10,26,000/- and Rs. 7,52,53,265/- on account of bogus purchases u/sec. 69C of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner by considering the fact that the Assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with supporting documentary evidence and therefore the grievance raised by the Assessee, could not be verified, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and affirmed the additions made by the Ld. AO, without going into the merits of the case.
This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As observed above, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, which is at all not permissible in view of the judgment of 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 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 on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Thus, the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
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.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025.