Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution, despite the assessee filing an application for condonation of delay due to a medical certificate and affidavit. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 8,21,012/- for unexplained cash credit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. Commissioner cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution as per the provisions of the Act and the High Court judgment cited. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) has the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 68, 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b), 251(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
Though in the instant case, both the parties have filed adjournment applications, however, this Court observes that the impugned order is an ex-parte and therefore it would be appropriate to dismiss the adjournment requests and to proceed with the case to decide the same. Thus, the adjournments requests are declined and case is proceeded with.
Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra 3. Considering the reason stated by the Assessee for the condonation of delay of 58 days in filing of this appeal, along with dully sworn affidavit and the medical certificate, as reasonable, bonafide and unintentional, the delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 15.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the act, has made the addition of Rs.8,21,012/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
The Assessee being aggrieved though challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, except seeking adjournment on one occasion, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no documents and therefore in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine but not on merit, which is not permissible, as per Hon’ble jurisdictional High court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Premkumar Arjundas (HUF) of 2013 dated 25.04.2016 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom.) 614, wherein it has been held under:
“That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply hi- 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 CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, as it is evident from the provisions of the Act”.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file
Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions/documents, as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. This Court also clarifies that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025.