VINAY RAMESH CHAVAN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), PUNE

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these are all relate to the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs. 69,00,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on account of short term capital gain in respect of immoveable property sold by the assessee during the relevant AY under consideration.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2016-17, the assessee did not file her return of income. Based on the information available on record, the Ld.AO found

The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, challenging the aforesaid addition. Despite service of notices of hearing issued during the appellate proceedings, there was non-compliance which resulted in ex- parte decision by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsing findings of the Ld.AO.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is not well-versed with the tax laws and she was completely dependent on her consultant for her tax related matters. All the notices were received by the consultant, who failed to respond. He further submitted that in Form-35 as well as on ITBA portal, email ID of the consultant was provided due to which the assessee was unaware of the notices issued. He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice,

The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that since the assessee failed to make any submissions in spite of several opportunities granted, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was completely justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. The appellate order reveals that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has applied the decisions in the cases of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another [118 ITR 461] (Hon’ble Supreme Court), M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 and Sunderlal Mannalal vs. Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260 and dismissed the case of the assessee for non-prosecution. No doubt, the Ld.CIT(A)- NFAC may decide the appeal where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal in spite of several opportunities, nonetheless, he has to adhere to legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. We observe that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, in the instant case, has passed the impugned order in concurrence with the order of the Ld.AO, without himself going into the merits of the case due to non-submission of any material or any factual evidence in support of her claim. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be sent back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudicating the assessee’s appeal before him afresh, on merits as per fact and law, after allowing reasonable

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st May, 2026