Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against an order passed under Section 200A (levying a late fee of Rs.94,000/- under Section 234E for AY 2015-16) was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance without considering the merits. The assessee argued that notices were not received at the correct email ID and disputed the levy of fee under Section 234E prior to its amendment w.e.f. 01.06.2015.
Held
Citing the Bombay High Court ruling in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that a CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on merits, with the CIT(A) directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on the merits of the case, and the validity of a late fee levy under Section 234E prior to its amendment.
Sections Cited
250, 200A, 234E, 251, 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Golden Sparrow Media Works V ACIT, Pvt. Ltd., s Circle-1(1), Pune. 884/9, Pinnacle House, Padmanabh Society, Erandwane, Pune City, Pune, Deccan Gymkhana S.O.-411004. PAN: AAFCG2237H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Suhas P Bora – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-Panaji passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2025 for the A.Y.2015-16 emanating from the Order under
1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the various notices from CIT(A) were not received by the appellant as the mail id on which the hearing notices were served was not operated by the appellant and appellant was under bonafide belief that the notices will be served on mail id which was updated on E-portal.
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the fact ought to have been verified whether proper notice has been served or not, before passing ex-parte orders.
Grounds on merits
The Ld. CIT(A) erred to consider the merits of the case that the provision of the fees payable u/s 234E was prior to amendment to Sec. 200A(1)(c) vide Finance Act, 2015 which was w.e.f 01.06.2015.
The Appellant prays that the levy of late fee u/s 234E of Rs.94,000/- through the medium of notice u/s 200A be quashed as the section does not permit such levy prior to amendment of law on 01.06.2015.
The appellant seeks the right to amend, modify, or add grounds as necessary.”
Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee 2 submitted that assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A)
[A] without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC].
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that the ld.CIT(A) did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits.
4.1 The ld.CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings issued notices. Assessee failed to comply these notices. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order under section 200A of the Act.
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 : 3 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 account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply 4 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.
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 19 September, 2025.