Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Badlapur Charity Trust, filed appeals against orders dismissing their appeals against assessment orders. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to a delay of 589 days, which was condoned by the tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merit but dismissed it for non-prosecution after issuing notices. The Tribunal found the assessee's plea for remand to be genuine and hence remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
148, 143(3), 142(1), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K(SMC
Before: Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The captioned appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate appellate orders, both dated 26.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012- 13. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, we deem it appropriate to extract the grounds of appeal in for A.Y 2012-13 for the purpose of adjudication.
-2511/Mum/2025 Asst. Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 for A.Y 2012-13
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant prays your honour to grant an opportunity of being heard in the interest of natural justice.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant prays honour to set aside the case to the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
3. The appellant submits that at the time of appellate proceedings, it could not place submissions, explanation & justification before the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and an ex-parte order has been passed by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Having gone through the fact, no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the matter is set aside to the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The appellant shall make due compliance with the notices issued by the authorities & furnish all the requisite details & explanation.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.
Firstly we are taking up for A.Y. 2012- 13 as both the appeals are identical and the assessee argued this matter. The assessee has filed its return of income for the relevant Assessment Year. The assessee is a trust and non-filer of return of income. The Assessing Officer observed that it has resulted in escapement of income. Hence the case of the assessee-trust was re-opened after recording the reasons and after taking approval from the prescribed authority. Notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2017 was issued and duly served upon the assesse-trust. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assesse- -2511/Mum/2025 Asst. Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13
- 3– trust vide letter dated 02.06.2017 enclosing a copy of physical return of income in Form ITR 7. The assessee had not filed return of income before the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s.143(3) and 142(1) dated 11.08.2017 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee filed copy of Trust Deed and Balance Sheet. The assesse-trust is registered u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, registration No. being TR/38146 dated 20.01.2004. During the year under consideration in the individual statement for the Assessment Year 2010-11, it was seen that the asseesee is in receipt of income on account of interest and the assessee had deposited cash in savings bank account amounting to Rs.87,76,280/-. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s details, the Assessing Officer made the addition of 4,61,000/- towards Corpus donation, and the disallowance of Rs. 21,04,748/- on account of depreciation.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assesse filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee’s appeal is delayed by 589 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining that due to the negligence of the consultant, an ex parte order was passed by the CIT(A). The explanation furnished by the assessee, supported by the additional evidence, appears to be genuine. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
-2511/Mum/2025 Asst. Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13
- 4–
As regards to the issues involved, it appears that the CIT (A) has totally ignored the fact that the assessee has not complied with the direction. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the CIT (A) has not decided the case on merit, the matter may be remanded back to the file of CIT(A).
The Ld. DR relied on the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assesses on merit, but dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. In fact, the CIT(A) has issued four notices as mentioned in para 5 of the order, but has not mentioned whether the same was served to the assessee or not. Since, the matter is not decided by giving adequate opportunity, the Ld. AR contended that the matter may be remanded back. This plea of the Ld. AR appears to be genuine. It is particularly mentioned that the CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit, therefore, we remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) will adjudicate the issues contesting therein on merits. Needless to say, assesse be given an opportunity of hearing by following the Principle of Natural Justice. Hence, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-2511/Mum/2025 Asst. Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13
- 5–
The facts involved in this appeal are identical to those in for A.Y. 2012-13, which has been decided partly in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, the decision rendered in for A.Y. 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal in A.Y. 2011-12. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19.09.2025.