Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution due to non-receipt of notices. The assessee contended that notices were not served on the correct email address provided in Form-35.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is mandated to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution without proper service of notice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without proper service of notice and without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 69, 250(4), 250(6), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b), 251(2), 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE
AssessmentYear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Ward-5(3)(5), Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bellandur, Vs. Bengaluru-560103. PAN NO : AOVPS3088K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R
PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh against the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) (NFAC) passed U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for Asst Year 2015-16 on 18/03/2025 emanating from Assessment Order dated 25/01/2023 passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The orders of the authorities below, insofar as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC erred in disposing off the appeal holding that the appellant has not complied ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 with the notices issued in course of hearing and accordingly dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, which is opposed to law as the appeal ought to have been disposed off on merits under the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have considered submissions made by the appellant as part of the statement of facts and documentary evidence filed in form of Bank statement and cash book forming part of the appeal memorandum filed while disposing off the appeal under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case.
The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not deciding the ground raised
by the appellant challenging the addition of Rs. 10,60,100/- made as unexplained deposit U/s. 69 of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case.
4. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”
3. Submissions of the Ld. AR: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate appeared virtually. She invited our attention to the Paper Book filed by the assessee. She submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had issued notices to the email address on the Income Tax portal but, in Form-35, the assessee had given different email address. No notice was served by the Ld. CIT(A) on the email address which is mentioned in Form-35 filed by the assessee at the time of filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR therefore, pleaded that one more opportunity may kindly be provided.
ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 Submission of Ld. DR: 4. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre.
Findings and Analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On a perusal of the order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Asst. Year 2015-16, dated 18/03/2025, it is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance without discussing the merits of the case.
It is observed that the assessee had provided the following email address viz., arnoldloy@gmail.com in Form-35, which is the Form for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not served the notices on the above referred email address mentioned by the assessee. Therefore, there was valid reason for non-compliance.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– “8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act."
Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (supra), it is held that it is mandatory for the Ld. CIT(A) to discuss and adjudicate the Grounds raised
by the assessee. However, in this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the Grounds raised by the assessee and also notices were not served properly on the assessee.
9. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside to Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 allowed. Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
We do not intend to adjudicate the Grounds No. 1, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee which are on the merits of the addition as we have set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, Grounds No. 1, 3 and 4 are dismissed as unadjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.