JITEN KISHORE AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KISHORE H. AJMERA),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4843/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 September 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is bound to decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a just and proper decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order from the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal in limine. The CIT(A) had initially dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and non-prosecution, despite the assessee claiming inadvertent mistakes and multiple appeals being filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) is empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merit. Whether the case should be remanded for a proper adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 254,Section 143(3),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 Prashant Ghumare, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Ld. Sr.D.R
Hearing: 15.09.2025Pronounced: 15.09.2025

O R D E R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

In the instant case, despite of affording various opportunities in the appellate proceedings initiated against the assessment order dated 11.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition of Rs.22,34,538/- being unexplained investment in jewellery, the Assessee made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents. Therefore, the Assessee is not entitled for any leniency.

Mr. Jiten Kishore Ajmera (Legal Heir of Late Shri Kishore H. Ajmera) 3. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as demonstrated by the Assessee that there were multiple appeals showing to have been filed in the CBDT portal relevant to assessment year under consideration and therefore due to inadvertent mistake or miscommunication or overlooking of the facts, the Assessee remained unattended or un-complied with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner and even otherwise the impugned order is an ex-parte, whereby the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine but not on merit, thus, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice as the Ld. Commissioner has the bounden duty to decide the appeal on merit even in the absence of the Assessee and/or non-prosecution as held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Premkumar Arjundas (HUF) in of 2013 dated 25.04.2026 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom) 614 , 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 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 CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, as it is evident from the provisions of the Act”.

4.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions/documents, as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2025.

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 →