Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an assessment order for AY 2019-20 to the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and non-compliance, without adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the assessee, leading the assessee to file an appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT held that the Ld. CIT(A) was statutorily obliged under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act to pass a speaking and reasoned order on each ground of appeal, even in an ex parte proceeding. The dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudication of specific grounds was a procedural irregularity. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
The key issue was whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating specific grounds on merits, especially in light of the mandate under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s IVRCL Indore Gujarat Vs. Dy.CIT Tollways Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 2 (1) PAN:AACCI2461C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: N o n e राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by IVRCL Indore Gujarat Tollways Ltd, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 08.07.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the CIT(A) is in gross violation of the provisions of law and hence is bad in law.
2. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissing the appeal.
3. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of demand for unaccounted purchases made.
4. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of expenditure on account of excess purchase.
5. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment u/s 144. 6. Any other ground that may considered at the time of hearing”.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 13.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2019–20. However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution and non-compliance. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal.
When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment petition filed. Therefore, the appeal is proceeded ex parte qua the assessee, based on the material available on record, after hearing the submissions of the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”).
The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had provided adequate opportunities to the assessee to present its case. Despite several notices issued through the ITBA portal, the assessee failed to file any written submissions or to appear on the dates fixed for hearing. It was further contended that the conduct of the assessee shows
Page 2 of 4 complete disregard to the appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A), being left with no alternative, was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. The Ld. DR accordingly prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld.
We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is evident from the appellate order that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on account of non-compliance. However, on perusal of the same, we observe that the assessee had raised specific grounds, including Ground No. 1 (placed at page no. 2 of the CIT(A)’s order), wherein it was contended that the Ld. AO had not considered the written submission dated 30.01.2024 filed in response to the final show-cause notice dated 25.01.2024. Despite such a specific ground being raised, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the same on merits. Even in an ex parte appellate order, the Ld. CIT(A) is statutorily bound under section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of each ground of appeal by passing a speaking and reasoned order on merits. Failure to do so amounts to a procedural irregularity rendering the appellate order unsustainable in law. Therefore, in our considered view, the dismissal of the appeal merely for non- prosecution without adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the assessee is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this issue requires reconsideration by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the following directions: a. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall adjudicate the appeal afresh on Page 3 of 4 merits, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. b. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all necessary documentary evidence and written submissions in support of its contentions. c. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments so as to enable timely disposal of the appeal.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms.