NALINI MAHENDRA THACKER,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 29(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4881/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as the law requires them to apply their mind to all issues. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. Commissioner. The assessee had filed an adjournment application which was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed affirming the assessment order without a decision on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) is empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits of the case, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b),Section 251(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 18.09.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.02.2025, 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. 2015-16.

2.

Considering the impugned order is an ex-parte order, adjournment application filed by the Assessee is rejected.

3.

Considering the reasons for delay of 94 days in filing of this appeal, as stated by the Assessee with duly shown affidavit, the delay is condoned.

4.

Coming to merits of the case, the Assessee remained non- complied, however, Ld. Commissioner failed to pass the order on merit but simply dismissed the appeal of the Assessee affirming the assessment order, which is not permissible in view of the Hon’ble jurisdiction High court 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 as 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”.

5.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, for just and proper decision of case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the revenue department under “other heads” within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to Assessee.

6.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh in the said terms.

7.

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. In case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

8.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

All 935 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →