Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w. Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices and absence of prosecution by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking, dismissed the appeal without addressing merits, and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, violating principles of natural justice, and the validity of proceedings under Section 147 and notices under Section 148A.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Praveen Kumar Aitha (“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 20.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“ 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing further opportunity.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have provided further opportunity when the appellant sought for time for hearing on 08.01.2025.
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the grounds on merit.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that the proceedings initiated u/s.147 and issue of notices u/s.148A are all not valid.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have observed that the officers who issued the notices and decided the assessment has no jurisdiction.
The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the gross amount received cannot be treated a sthe income of the appellant and ought not to have confirmed the addition made of Rs.59,41,500/- treating the aggregate of the deposits made into the bank account as the income of the appellant.
8. Any other ground / grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment in this case was completed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 02/03/2024. Aggrieved by the said reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
However, the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, primarily on the ground of non-compliance and absence of prosecution by the assessee.
4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that although the assessee was unable to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the matter on merits. It was submitted that the appellate order is non-speaking and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR further pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee, and the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee which was not availed. Therefore, the Ld. DR argued that no further indulgence is warranted.
We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the records in the light of submissions made on either side. It is not in dispute that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without dealing with the merits of the case while upholding the action of the Ld. AO. On perusal of the impugned appellate order, we find that the order is non- speaking, as it does not contain any discussion on merits of the case, nor any findings on the grounds raised by the assessee. It is a well-settled law that the first appellate authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order.
Dismissing the appeal merely for non-compliance, without addressing the grounds on merit, amounts to denial of justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.
7. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation before the Ld. CIT(A) and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2025.