Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who had dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of Rs. 44,04,041/-. The assessment order was passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 for AY 2016-17.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the documents and submissions filed by the assessee, which is against the principles of natural justice and judicial precedents. The CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds and without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 153C, 148, 250, 251, 246A
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
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by 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.2016-17 dated 02.04.2025, emanating from order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 17.03.2022. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, since the proceedings were initiated on the basis of information/documents related to assessee found during the course of search at third party, the notice issued by the AO under section 148 instead of Section 153C is bad in law and the resultant order under section 144 r w s 147 is liable to be quashed. 2) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A). NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,04,041/- made by AO u/s 69A of the act by treating the entire cash deposits in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd as unexplained money of the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case and submisions on record. 3) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A). NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,04,041/- made by AO u/s 69A of the act without adjudicating the grounds of appeal before him / without verifying the direct documentary evidences furnished by the appellant in support his claim. 4) The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise. substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. The ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that Assessee had made elaborate submission before the ld.CIT(A). In the paper book, ld.AR filed evidence in the form of e-proceedings acknowledgment to demonstrate elaborate submission made by assessee before ld.CIT(A) and petition for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR has filed these documents from page no.15 to 100 of the paper book. Ld.AR submitted that before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee had filed financial statements, cash book, purchase and sales ledger, transporter confirmation, confirmation from purchasers. Ld.AR further submitted however, ld.CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that no evidence has been filed. Ld.AR pleaded that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is bad in law.
Submission of ld.DR: 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer(AO).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record placed before us. In this case, Assessment Order was passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 for A.Y.2016-17 on 17.03.2022, assessing the total income of assessee at Rs.44,04,041/-.
4.1 Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
4.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.
We have perused the order of the ld.CIT(A). The relevant paragraph 9.9 of the order of ld.CIT(A) is reproduced here as under :
“9.9 During the appeal proceedings, no documentary evidences have been submitted by the appellant to verify the claim in-spite of multiple opportunities being provided by this office as stated above. In view of above facts and the considering the explanation of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant has failed to justify the transactions based on which addition was made to income during the assessment proceedings and remand report also. It is crystal clear evident that the appellant has failed to justify the source of cash deposits made to bank account. The contention of the appellant remained unjustified and unsubstantiated. Hence, the Assessment Order is upheld the ground is noted as disallowed.” 5.1 Thus, it can be observed that ld.CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal stating that no evidence has been filed. However, we have perused the e-acknowledgment statement submitted by the Assessee in the paper book and noted that Assessee had made elaborate submission along with documentary evidence. Ironically, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the submission of the assessee. It is also observed that Assessee had raised the following grounds of appeal ld.CIT(A) :
1. Since the proceedings were initiated on the basis of information documents related to assessee found during the course of search at third party the notice issued by the AO under section 148 instead of Section 153C is bad in law and the resultant order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 is liable to be quashed.
1. The AO erred in treating the entire cash deposits in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co operative Credit Society Ltd as unexplained money of the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case.
1. Appellant craves the permission to add amend modify alter revise substitute delete any or all grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
6. The Ground No.1 raised before ld.CIT(A) is a legal ground. Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee.
7. 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 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.
7.1 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 this case, though assessee had filed relevant documents, the ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the documents.
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 21 July, 2025.