Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without discussing the merits of the case. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) did not discuss facts or points in dispute, violating statutory provisions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal without considering the merits violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250(6), 147, 69C, 68, 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 271AAC(1), 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta
"ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीमित अ"पूण" गु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम&। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2019-20 Mayur Jagdishbhai Thakkar The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Meldima Vali Street Ward-1(8) v/s. Near Hira Sheri Bhavnagar – 364 001 Kharakuva, Bhavnagar Gujarat – 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AJIPT 3961 E (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARs Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 18/06/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds appeal: Mayur Jagdishbhai Thakkar vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in dismissing the appeal ex-parte in violation of principles of natural justice.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing a non-speaking order without dealing with merits of the case resulting in violation of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and in not permissible either in law or on facts.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) as erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 8,14,62,029/- u/s. 69C of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 89,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act.
Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Mayur Jagdishbhai Thakkar vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20 3 11.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.
3. At the outset, the Ld.Sr.Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to show that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The Ld.CIT(A) has neither discussed the facts of the case nor the disputed points nor has given any findings on merits. The action of the Ld.CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal of the assessee without discussion on merits is against the statutory provisions. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contemplates that the ld.CIT(A) would states the points in dispute and thereafter assign reasons in support of conclusions. This exercise of power at the end of the Ld.CIT(A) is not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh on merits. We further direct the assessee to co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) and refrain himself from seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In view of the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08/05/2025. ( Smt. Annapurna Gupta ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 08/05/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Mayur Jagdishbhai Thakkar vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20