Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 was directed against an order passed by the CIT(A), which arose from an assessment order. The assessee raised grounds challenging the jurisdiction and disputing an addition of Rs. 13,11,500/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to issues with receiving the order. It was observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is mandated to dispose of appeals on merits, even in ex-parte cases, and thus remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) has correctly disposed of the appeal on merits, or if an ex-parte order without addressing the grounds of appeal is sustainable.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
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, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015- 16 is directed against the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after also called ‘the Act’) which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) dated 29.12.2017.
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Add CIT (A), Indore may please be set aside.
On the basis of facts and as per law the Assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik may please be quashed being without jurisdiction.
On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 13,11,500/- made on account of cash deposited in bank account may please be deleted as during the course of assessment proceedings the AO has raised query as regards the transactions not pertaining to the year under appeal.
On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law the addition of Rs. 13,11,500/- confirmed by Addl. CIT (Appeals), Indore on account of cash deposited in bank account is unjust and the same may please be deleted.
The appellant craves for the addition, deletion, alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal
3. Registry has informed that the instant appeal is delayed by 177 days. Application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit has been filed. Perusal of the same indicates that the delay was on account of non receipt of the impugned order by the assessee on time. It is noticed that the e-mail id mentioned in form 35 was cashahzad@icai.ord but the impugned order was sent by CIT(A) on another e-mail id 9273575051a@gmail.com. We find this to be a reasonable cause and therefore condone the delay by 177 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.
4. At the outset ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order is ex-parte quo assessee and ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal without dwelling into the merits of the case. Prayer made for restoring the issue on merit to the file of ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. On Perusal of the impugned orders, reveals that they are passed ex- parte qua the assessee. The Id. CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal in limine, without discussing anything on merits of the issues. The settled position of law mandates that the ld.CIT(A) should dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay/(2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that Id.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Id. Counsel for the assessee and there being no objection from the side of ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice deem it proper to give an opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits in the instant appeals are being remitted to the file of Id.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to file any evidence as it deems expedient and ld.CIT(A) shall consider all the submissions of the assessee and pass the orders in conformity with the provisions envisaged u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to provide proper email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the Id.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the ld.CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the year under appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.