What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority must decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them in limine for non-prosecution, even if the assessee fails to appear. The impugned order was set aside.

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the first appellate authority which dismissed the appeal in limine. The first appellate authority had issued multiple notices for hearing, which the assessee allegedly did not comply with.

What were the issues?

Whether the first appellate authority can dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of hearing.

Woodfun vs ACIT | s.143(3) | ITAT Mumbai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Faisal Vora

For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Hearing: 27.02.2025Pronounced: 27.02.2025

O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 14.11.2024, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013- 14.

We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. As could be seen from the grounds raised, the primary grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of the assessee, that too, in limine by the first appellate authority.

Having perused the impugned order of the first appellate authority and other relevant materials on record, it is observed that the assessee had preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)

Rs.70,16,390/-. It is evident, in course of proceedings before first appellate authority, notice of hearing, purportedly, were issued on four occasions. Alleging that the assessee did not comply with such notices, the first appellate authority relied upon couple of judicial precedents and dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the appeal on merits through a speaking order. In our view, as per the provisions of the Act, the first appellate authority has to decide the appeal filed before him/her on merits. Even if the assessee/appellant does not appear before the first appellate authority, he/she cannot decide the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. Since the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority is not in accordance with the statutory provision, we are inclined to set aside the order and restore the issues back to the file of learned first appellate authority for de novo adjudication. The first appellate authority is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits through a speaking order. Hence, grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

WOODFUN ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments