ADIREDDY SANYASI RAO,VEERAVASARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) can pass ex-parte orders, they must still examine the grounds and decide the appeal on merits, not just dismiss it for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. The assessee appealed this dismissal to the ITAT, arguing that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The procedural fairness required in ex-parte orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)159 citing69 Taxmann.com 407 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Rajamahendravaram vide ITA No.10021/2015-16/CIT(A)/Rjy dated 27.09.2018 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14.
2 I.T.A. No.19/Viz/2019 Adireddy Sanyasi Rao, Veeravasaram
Delay. There was delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed condonation petition requesting to condone the delay. We have gone through the petition filed by the assessee and after hearing both the sides, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
All the grounds of appeal are related to the dismissal of appeal by the Ld.CIT(A) ex-parte without going into the merits. In this case, the ITO, Ward-1, Bhimavaram has levied penalty u/s 271B by an order dated 21.01.2015 against which the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits. The Ld.AR further submitted that in spite of raising various grounds in appeal the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee, therefore, requested to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction adjudicate the case on merits.
3 I.T.A. No.19/Viz/2019 Adireddy Sanyasi Rao, Veeravasaram
On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. We observe from the Ld.CIT(A)’s order that he has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, but the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A),hence, he has no option except to pass orders ex- parte. However even in ex-parte order the Ld.CIT(A) required to examine the grounds and decide the appeal ground-wise on merits, but not permitted to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution. This view is up held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Nagpur vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)* reported in 69 taxmann.com 407.Therefore, we are of the considered opinion the issue needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decided the appeal afresh on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee..
4 I.T.A. No.19/Viz/2019 Adireddy Sanyasi Rao, Veeravasaram
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd March, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (िी.दुगाा राि) (धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBERलेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER नवशध7खधपटणम /Visakhapatnam नदनधंक /Dated : 22.03.2019 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee- Adireddy Sanyasi Rao, P.P.Road, Veeravasaram West Godavari Dist. 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram 3. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajamahendravaram 4. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals),Rajamahendravaram 5. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, तिशाखािटणम/DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गार्ड फ़ाईि / Guard file आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
More judgments on Section 271B
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2867/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2866/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2865/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2864/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026