Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22 were directed against orders of the CIT(A) that arose from assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3). The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) for hearings, leading to ex-parte orders.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits even in ex-parte cases. Therefore, the issues raised on merits were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merits even if the assessee fails to appear, and whether the matter should be remanded for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144C(3), 250(6)
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: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS.ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned two appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2020-21 and 2021-22 are directed against the separate orders of Ld.CIT(A), Pune-13, dated 09.01.2025 arising out of respective Assessment Orders passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Since common issues have been raised in the impugned two assessment years, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned orders are exparte and assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT(A). Assessee sought adjournment but then in response to the final notice of hearing, it could not file/furnish and 860/PUN/2025 Air Products Holding B.V. the details. Prayer made to afford one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2022-23 wherein this Hon’ble Tribunal has remitted the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) on observing that the assessee failed to file the details before ld.CIT(A). Ld. Departmental Representative did not object if the issues in the instant appeals are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that assessee is a Limited company and the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act for AY 2020-21 framed on 22.11.2022 by ld. ACIT (IT), Circle-1, Pune wherein interest receipt of Rs.135,96,06,930/- was brought to tax @10% invoking the provisions of Article 11 of DTAA between India and Netherlands.
5 Aggrieved with the additions made by ld.ACIT, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A). On the four dates of hearing fixed on 26.06.2024, 18.07.2024, 05.11.2024, 25.11.2024 assessee sought adjournment. Thereafter, ld.CIT(A) issued notice on 27.12.2024 fixing the hearing on 09.01.2025 but there was no compliance. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not plead its grounds of appeal before ld.CIT(A). Assessee has also filed order dated 13.05.2025 in wherein this Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2022-23 has remitted the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication as the order passed by ld.CIT(A) was exparte). We further notice that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s instant appeal for non- prosecution without discussing the issues on merits and has and 860/PUN/2025 Air Products Holding B.V. summarily confirmed the order of ld.AO placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Anil Goel Vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 212.
6. For A.Y. 2021-22 also, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution on observing that “assessee has not furnished any explanation or evidence against the additions made by the AO. In absence of any other controverting evidence/material on record other than those already mentioned which may aid the claim of the appellant, I am constrained to accept the conclusions arrived at by the AO.”
We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. We therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice deem fit to restore the issues raised on merits in the impugned two assessment years to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and for deciding the issues in accordance with law and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is at liberty to adduce evidences in support of its grounds of appeal which it intends to plead before ld.CIT(A). Needless to say that Ld.CIT(A) in the set-aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department on ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned orders in the instant appeals are set aside and and 860/PUN/2025 Air Products Holding B.V. effective grounds of appeal raised on merits are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 25th day of August, 2025.