Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed two appeals for A.Y. 2014-15 against separate orders of the Ld.CIT(A), which arose from an assessment order under Section 143(3) and a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c). The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment order after the Assessee failed to comply with notices, and did not adjudicate the specific grounds of appeal. The Assessee attributed the non-compliance to illness and sought another opportunity.
Held
Following a Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate all grounds of appeal on merits and cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted both the quantum appeal and the consequential penalty appeal for de novo adjudication, instructing the Ld.CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and confirm an assessment without adjudicating the specific grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee. 2. The extent of the Ld.CIT(A)'s powers and duties to conduct further inquiry and decide all issues on merits in an appeal. 3. Whether a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) is consequential and should be remitted back for de novo adjudication if the quantum appeal is remanded.
Sections Cited
143(3), 271(1)(c), 250(4), 250(6), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b), 251(2), 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
The captioned two appeals filed by the Assessee relate to A.Y. 2014-15 and are against the separate orders of ld.CIT(A) dated 20.03.2024 and 03.10.2019 respectively emanating from Assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 15.12.2016 and Penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) dated 29.03.2022.
Findings & Analysis : 2. We will first discuss as the Lead case. In this case, ld.CIT(A) had issued seven notices to the Assessee. Assessee failed to comply the notices issued by ld.CIT(A). Therefore, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the Assessment Order.
During the hearing before us, ld. AR submitted that due to the illness Assessee could not file necessary details. Ld.AR submitted that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the Assessee to submit all the necessary details.
In this case, ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by Assessee specifically.
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. 2
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 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, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that ld.CIT(A) has to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by Assessee.
6. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the Assessee. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. emanates from the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Since we have set aside the quantum Appeal in to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, the penalty being consequential in nature is also remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Condonation of Delay : 8. There was a delay in filing Appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has stated that he was not well versed with technology and income tax e-proceedings. Ld.CIT(A) passed the order on 03.10.2019 during which period covid-19 restrictions were on. Assessee has further pleaded that he was ill and owing to which the appeals could not be submitted in time. We have perused the submission of the Assessee explaining the reason for delay. We are convinced that there was ‘reasonable cause’ on the part of Assessee and therefore we condone the delay.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th August, 2025.