KRISHNAKANT KUDALE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1),, PUNE

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by certain disallowance confirmed in the first appeal.

The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee filed return declaring total income at Nil. The assessment was completed at total income of Rs.21,24,970 denying the benefit Krishnakant Kudale Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Though certain opportunities were given by the ld. CIT(A), but the assessee remained quiet and did not respond. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of non-appearance by the assessee before him.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is seen from the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal at the threshold. It is a settled position that if assessee remains absent before CIT(A), it becomes the latter‟s duty to dispose of the appeal ex-parte but on merits. CIT(A) has no option of dismissing an appeal in limine for non-prosecution in the absence of assessee participating in the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) in the extant facts has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance. In the given circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for disposing of the appeal on merits. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A).

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th December, 2022.