Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed against the order of the CIT(A) which affirmed additions made by the AO. The assessee had challenged these additions before the CIT(A), but the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal observed that although the assessee was negligent, the issues required adjudication on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals dismissed for non-prosecution should be adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal, and if so, whether the same should be remanded to the lower appellate authority.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the order even dated 27.12.2024, 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. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, & 2018-19.
All these appeals under consideration are based on the identical facts and having involved identical issues and therefore for the sake of brevity the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and issues involved in as a lead case and result of the same would be mutatis mutandis applicable to all the appeals under consideration.
In this case, vide order dated 29.02.2016 u/s 143(3) the Assessing Officer (AO) has made the following additions:
Rs. 1,16,95,500/-: on account of Unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act; Rs. 82,37,000/-: on account of short term capital gain
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid additions by dismissing the appeals of the Assessee for non prosecution.
We observe from the impugned order that though the Ld. Commissioner has afforded various opportunities by issuing notices to the Assessee, however, the Assessee has made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee on the basis of material available on record as the conduct of the Assessee was negligent and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency. However, considering peculiar facts and circumstances in totality as the issues involved in the instant case remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner by the Ld. Commissioner, therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice and considering the conduct of the Assessee, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner in the above terms accordingly and the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
As the remaining appeals ITA No.649/M/2025, ITA No.650/M/2025 & ITA No.651/M/2025 are based on the same facts and circumstances and having involved the same issues as observed above, hence the same are allowed for statistical purposes in the same terms and conditions as observed above i.e. subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- in each case.
In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025.