ARUMUGA NAINAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri N.V. Balaji took us through the order of CIT(A) dated 25.10.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16 and stated that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, 118 ITR 461 and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) is a quasi judicial authority and in the statute of Income Tax Act, CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication, but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits. The appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default but he is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee. This view has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). Hence, the ld.counsel stated that this order CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

On the other hand, the ld. senior Departmental Representative stated that the matter was posted on number of times, as noted by the CIT(A), but there was no response from the assessee.

After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is a quasi judicial authority and in the statute of Income Tax Act, CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication, but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits. The appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default but he is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee. We further noted that, this view has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). Hence, dismissal for default by CIT(A) is bad in law and accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A). The appeal is remanded back CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.