Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18, concerning additions under Section 69A related to cash deposits from a recharge business and an addition for agricultural income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which the assessee contended was due to not receiving the final hearing notice, thus denying an opportunity to present the case on merits.
Held
The Tribunal noted the gap in hearing notices and the dismissal without merits. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, or if the matter should be remanded for a decision on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SM-B- ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24/03/2025 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and has not decided the same on merits. He has referred to the details of notice issued by the learned CIT (A) as given in para 4.1 of the impugned order and submitted that after issuing the earlier notice of 12/04/2021 and 13/3/2022 both during the Covid-19 pandemic period, the last notice was issued by the learned CIT (A) on 13/03/2025 and then passed the Page 2 of 4 impugned order on 24/03/2025. He has pointed out that the last notice issued by the learned CIT (A) on 13/03/2025 was not received by the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not file any submission, reply, details/documents before the learned CIT (A). He has then submitted that the assessee was not given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. Thus, he has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
On the other hand, the learned DR has not seriously objected to the prayer of the assessee, if the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.
We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned order of the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) has given the details of the notices issued in para 4.1 as under:
Thus, it is clear that the first two notices were issued on 12/04/2021, 13/03/2022 during the Covid-19 Pandemic period. The last notice was issued on 13/03/2025 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 24/03/2025. It is clear from Page 3 of 4 the details that there is a gap of 3 years in the earlier notice issued by the learned CIT (A) and the last notice issued on 13/03/2025. Thereafter, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without deciding the same on merits. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the learned CIT (A). Hence, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee on merits after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.