SARANG DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(3),, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 08.03.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 08.05.2023. During the course of hearing before us, the assessee filed an adjournment application. Since the adjournment was not on sufficient ground, therefore, the same was rejected and the appeal was heard. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 369 days. The assessee submitted that neither the order was received

It has also been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act. The relevant extract is as under:

After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the