Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, despite grounds of appeal being raised. The assessee had failed to file replies to notices issued by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on its merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, or is it mandatory to decide the appeal on merits?
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 148, 151A, 144B, 246A, 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 21.08.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 31.01.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
[A] “1. That the notice under section 148 of the Act for the reassessment of income for the AY 2018-19 was wrongly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer.
2. That the Jurisdictional AO has excess is authority by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.
3. That the notice issued under section 148 violates the section 151A and 1448 of the Act and is bad in law and hence the complete re- assessment proceedings need to be quashed.
4. That the impugned order is arbitrary and bad in law in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
On the facts and in law, the learned AO has inadvertently made the addition to the income of the appellant amounting to INR 10,56,780/-
The total tax liability computed by the Jurisdictional AO is not in correspondence with the addition to the income of the appellant.
7. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”
2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. A letter from Mohsin Hada dated Nil requesting for adjournment was filed by Email. It is noticed that there is no letter of authority or power of attorney duly signed by Assessee and Mohsin Hada on record.
2.1 Therefore, the letter filed by Mohsin Hada has not been considered by the Bench. 2 [A] Findings & Analysis : 3. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as assessee failed to file any reply to three notices issued by ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the Assessee some of which are legal grounds.
4. The grounds of appeal raise by the Assessee before the ld.CIT(A) as per Form No.35 are as under : “Aggrieved by the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act dated 31.01.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with the following grounds of appeal.
1. That the notice under section 148 of the Act for the reassessment of income for the AY 2018-19 was wrongly issued by by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer.
That the Jurisdictional AO has under section 148 of the Act. Excess is authority by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.
That the notice issued under section 148 violates the section 151A and 144B of the Act and is bad in law and hence the complete re- assessment proceedings need to be quashed.
That the impugned order is arbitrary and bad in law in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
5. On the facts and in law, the learned AO has inadvertently made the addition to the income of the appellant amounting to INR 10,56,780/- 3 [A] 6. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”
5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act.
Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn.
Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on 4 account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply [A] clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote. 5.1 Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that ld.CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and ld.CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution.
6. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12 December, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 12 Dec, 2025/ SGR 5 [A]