Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without giving any findings on merit. The assessee contended that the notice was not received due to lack of net savviness, and the CIT(A) order was ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, violating the principles of natural justice. The order was therefore set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case, and whether it violated principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y. 2022-23.
Grounds of appeal are as under:
1080-Chd-2024 Aniket Verma, Panchkula 2
1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution. The notice tabulated vide para-4 of the appellate orders could not be complied because the appellant not being net savvy person did not come to know about the issuance of said notice. 2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 78,52,100/- made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.13,94,18,717/- by treating the creditors to the extent as unexplained. 4 That the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and facts.
At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee has brought it to the notice of the Bench that the appellate order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte for non-
1080-Chd-2024 Aniket Verma, Panchkula 3 persecution of the appeal without giving any findings on merit on the basis of material available on record.
Per contra Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the authorities below, arguments made by the ld. counsel of the Assessee and the ld. DR. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-persecution without giving any findings on merit on the basis of material available on record. We are of the considered view that although the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order but he should have given his findings on merit also but that had not been done. Therefore, in the fitness of things and keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are inclined to remand it back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit, by considering the submissions of the Assessee and the 1080-Chd-2024 Aniket Verma, Panchkula 4 relevant material available on record on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee in accordance with law, Needless to say, that the CIT(A) shall afford due, reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes.
Order pronounced on 27.10.2025.