MANOJ KUMAR VERMA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5154/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2026AY 2024-253 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must apply their mind to all issues. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, and if the appeal should be decided on merits or remanded.

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 BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE JAGADISH

Pronounced: 24.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2024-25.

ITA No.5154/MUM/2026 Manoj Kumar Verma

2.

The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the Ld. Commissioner though afforded various opportunities to the Assessee; however, the Assessee failed to comply with the notices issued. Consequently, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner proceeded with the case as ex-parte and dismissed the appeal by affirming the assessment order.

3.

We observe that the impugned order, prima facie, appears to have been passed in limine and not on the merits of the case, which is impermissible in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT (Central) v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [(2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.); (2016) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom.)], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:

“That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues arising from the impugned order before him, whether or not the same have been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” 4. Thus, considering the conduct of the Assessee and the ground nos. 1.1 to 1.3 raised by the Assessee, whereby the Assessee has specifically prayed for remand of matter and the fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not adjudicated the appeal on merits, particularly in the absence of the submissions and supporting documents, which the Assessee failed to file, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, subject to the Assessee depositing costs of Rs. 11,000/- with the Revenue Department under the head “Other Heads” within 15 days from the date of this order. Suffice it to say that the Ld. Commissioner shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

ITA No.5154/MUM/2026 Manoj Kumar Verma

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

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 →