Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an assessment order with additions of over Rs. 12 lakhs. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear or file submissions despite several notices. The present appeal was filed after a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying costs.
Key Issues
Whether dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits is legally sustainable, and whether condonation of delay is warranted in such circumstances.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/09/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/09/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana dt. 29/09/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20.
At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 170 days for which the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation application, relevant contents of which read as under:
Subject: -Condonation of Delay in filing of Appeal in the case Sh. Jaswinder Singh Prop. Mis Khullar Automobiles, Ferozepur Cantt for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. Your Honour, With respect to above said subject, the appellant submits as follows:- That, the delay in filing the Appeal with your goodself was due to reason that there is no physical order that has been served on Appellant. The Appellant being bonafide person has not been aware about the CIT(A) order showing online on income tax portal. Further, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana has dismissed the appeal considering Non-submission of documents and written 2 submissions without going into the merits of the case Although the appellant has duly explained his submissions in the Grounds of Appeal
Raised in the Form
35. (Appeal with CIT(A). In lieu of this, you are requested to condone the delay and admit the Appeal for hearing on merits in the interest of natural justice.
Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay.
After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order making additions of Rs.12,31,980/-, including disallowance of Rs.6,16,443/-. The CIT(A) issued several notices fixing the case for hearing. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no written submissions were filed. The CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal in limine for non- prosecution by placing reliance on various judicial precedents.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.
During the course of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that repeated notices were issued to the assessee, yet there was no compliance. The conduct of the assessee showed that he was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The DR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd. v. CIT 38 ITD 320 (Del), the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC), to argue that mere filing of appeal does not amount to pursuing it. According to him, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution after giving repeated opportunities.
We have heard the Ld DR and perused the material available on the record. It is an admitted position that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without 3 adjudicating the issues on the merits. While it is true that the assessee failed to attend the proceedings, the fact remains that the appellate authority is required under section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of an appeal by a speaking order, dealing with each ground raised before it. A dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits is not sustainable in law.
9.1 Considering the entirety of circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity. In the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with the direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- to be deposited in Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF) PGIMR (Chandigarh) within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order. At the same time, the assessee is directed to co-operate fully in the proceedings and not to seek unwarranted adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.