Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against an order for AY 2020-21 was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for want of prosecution. The assessee had initially filed a return of income, which was processed by the CPC, leading to an addition for delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to decide the grounds of appeal as required by Section 250(6) of the Act and had dismissed the appeal solely for non-prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC rightly dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merits, and whether the Tribunal should remand the matter for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
143(1), 154, 36(1)(va), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21.
There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in operating a security agency. The assessee filed his return of income declaring taxable income of Rs.33,15,260/-. The said return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act and thereafter on the request of assessee u/s 154 rectified intimation was issued on 10.06.2022 by processing the taxable income at Rs.60,02,180/-. The above processed income includes addition of Rs.26,86,920/- towards disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of employees’ contribution of EPF and ESIC on account of delayed payment.
Being aggrieved with above action of the CPC, an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee and also perused the case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that CPC has disallowed the belated payment of employees’ PF and ESIC contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. We further find that the assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. In this regard, we find that in the light of section 250(6) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was required to decide each and every ground raised by the assessee before him. However, in the instant case, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided any of the ground raised by the assessee and simply dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case as well as with the consent of both the parties, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/evidences/submission, if any, to