Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions for difference in opening stock and unexplained cash deposits. The Assessee appealed but failed to provide compliance or documents to the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal summarily.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's order dismissing the appeal was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in summarily dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without proper adjudication on merits, and whether the case should be remanded for a fresh decision.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH “A”, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.02.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ 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. 2017-18.
In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 19.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.78,37,888/- being difference between opening stock as against the actual stock and Rs.21,73,300/- being cash deposit as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved against the aforesaid additions though preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities the Assessee eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents and therefore the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances dismissed the appeal of the Assessee affirming the findings of the AO in the assessment order and the aforesaid additions.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We observe that though the Ld. Commissioner has mentioned in the impugned order that “once an appeal is preferred before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), it becomes obligatory on his part to dispose of the same on merit and it is not open for him u/s 250 of the Act to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the same by the appellant”, however, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee just by mentioning that “the findings of the AO in the assessment order are found to be a self-speaking and do not require any interference. The appeal is dismissed”, which in our considered opinion is a clear-cut cryptic order not bases on any reasons and/or grounds “as to how the assessment order has been substantiated”.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, for just and proper decision of the case, equitable relief, fair play and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions and documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. We also clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2025.