LEENA SHANKAR SHETAKR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 20/08/2024, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 11/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

The Assessing Officer has erred in adding the alleged bank deposits of Rs.5,40,000/- during the year to the Income under section 68. 3. The reopening is bad at law and the assessment order is bad at law.”

During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order dated 11/12/2019 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution. It was submitted that the professional tax consultant appointed by the Assessee to pursue the appeal before the CIT(A) had failed to enter appearance before the CIT(A) and make proper representation and therefore, the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. Further, despite giving assurance, the said tax professional failed to take remedial action and file appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Assessee was constrained to approach another tax professional for filing the present appeal. In the meanwhile the time limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal had lapsed and the present appeal was filed after a delay of 25 days along with application seeking confirmation of delay. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee also invited our attention to the sworn affidavit placed on record in support of the aforesaid submissions and prayed that delay in filing the present appeal be condoned and the appeal be restore to the file of CIT(A).

Per contra the learned Department representative supported the order passed by the CIT(A) and submitted that despite having been granted a number of opportunities the Assessee failed to make any representation before the CIT(A) and therefore the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material Assessment Year 2013-2014

We are satisfied that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the present appeal in time before the Tribunal. The Assessee has given explanation for the delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal which we find to be reasonable. Accordingly, the delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

On perusal of the order impugned passed by the CIT(A), we find that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee without examining the merits of the contentions raised before CIT(A) since the Assessee had failed to responded to notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A). The appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF): [2016] 240 Taxman 133 (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay)[25-04-2016], it has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that the provisions of the Act do not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal preferred by an Assessee on account of non-prosecution. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, we set aside the order, dated 06/10/2024, passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on merits as per law after granting the Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee has directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and not seek unnecessary adjournment. Further, the Assessee is also directed to file all the relevant submissions/documents/details on which the Assessee wishes to place reliance before the CIT(A) forthwith on receiving notice of hearing. It is clarified that in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance or file relevant documents/details/submission, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to adjudicate the appeal on merits on the basis of material on record. Assessment Year 2013-2014

Since we have restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) in terms of paragraph 7 above, Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes whereas Grounds No. 3 raised by the Assessee is dismissed as being infructuous. All the rights and contentions are left open.

In result the present appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.