SUKHRAM BHAGWANDAS KANDHARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1101/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 April 2025AY 2021-22Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must adjudicate on merits. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT with two grounds: taxing rent on self-occupied property and not giving credit for self-assessment tax. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-response to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal solely for non-response to notices without adjudicating on merits? Whether the appellant should be given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Thakwani
Pronounced: 11/04/2025
2.

The same grounds raised before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that three opportunities were given and there was no response from the appellant and hence the appeal was dismissed.

3.

During the hearing proceedings before the Bench, Ld. AR of the appellant has mentioned that the notices sent by Ld. CIT(A) were not seen by the appellant and hence could not file response. Otherwise, there is a very good case for the appellant on merits, for example even the credit for self assessment tax paid by the appellant was not given by the Ld. AO while completing the assessment. Similarly, it was pleaded that the appellant has got good case with regard to the addition made on annual letting value of self occupied property. In view of the same, it was requested that one

2 Sukhram Bhagwandas Kandhari opportunity may be give to explain the facts before Ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue back to Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. AR and argued that three opportunities were given with sufficient intervals and appellant has not responded, hence additions should be confirmed.

5.

Heard rival submissions. From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the appeal was dismissed only because there is no response to the notices issued. Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues on merits. In this regard, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (69 Taxman.com 407)(Bom), has held that Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal by the appellant and Ld. CIT(A) has to pass the order on all the issues mentioned in the assessment order and in the grounds of appeal raised before him. In view of the same, the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits after giving an opportunity. The appellant is also directed to respond to the notice issued by Ld. CIT(A) and see that the appeal proceedings are completed properly at the earliest.

6. The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/04/2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →