Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed against orders of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeals due to non-prosecution. The Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information regarding bogus purchases and sales, and subsequently made additions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding them on merits. The CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals in writing with well-reasoned orders, even if the assessee does not appear, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, and whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 153C were validly initiated.
Sections Cited
250, 153C, 142(1), 69C, 251, 139, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम", लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / 816 & 817/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2019-20 and 2020-21) S.S. Industries, Plot No.610, 611, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income- 620, 621, Urla Industrial Area, Village- tax, Central Circle 1, Raipur, Central Accholi, Distt.-Raipur, C.G.-492003 Revenue Building, Raipur, C. G. PAN: ACLFS9015L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee by : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of : 20/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:
Common facts and similar grounds arise in the above captioned appeals of the assessee; therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.
These appeals for Assessment Years (‘AYs’) 2019-20 and 2020-21 filed by the assessee are directed against orders dated 16.12.2025 (even dated in both appeals) of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 [‘CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur
The appellant assessee has raised following grounds in -
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without determining grounds of appeal as required u/s 250(6) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 which is against the principles of law decided in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur Va. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay)
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 is not justified in confirming action of the Ld. Assessing Officer initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 without fulfilling stipulated conditions mandated under the Act.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 has erred in confirming passing of assessment order as notice u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not issued despite filing letter requesting to treat the return filed earlier u/s.139 of the Act as return in response to notice u/s.153C of the Act.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,82,84,253/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering facts of the case in its entirety and without incriminating material.
5. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts.
6. The appellant reserves the right to addition, after or omit all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice." In 1st. 2nd, 5th and 6th grounds are almost similar to 3.1 those taken the ITA No.816/RPR/2025. Remaining grounds of read as under:
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 has erred in confirming passing of assessment order as notice u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not issued despite filing letter requesting to treat the return filed earlier u/s.139 of the Act as return in response to notice u/s.153C of the Act.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,82,84,253/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Income-tax Act, S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur 1961 without considering facts of the case in its entirety and without incriminating material.”
4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for the relevant years based on the information from the Assessing Officer of the searched person; Shri Santosh Kumar Agrawal, Opp Mittal Complex, Rathore Chowk, Ganjpara Raipur and M/s Bhaveshkumar Bhogilar Patel in Gujarat that the assessee had indulged in the bogus purchases and sales, The Ld. AO issued various notices under section 142(1) of the Act as detailed in page 5 of the assessment order of both years. However, the appellant assessee did not ensure any compliance, the Ld. AO, therefore, having no option except to complete the assessment of relevant years. Hence, he taxed the entire bogus purchases/sales of Rs.1,82,84,253/- and Rs.7,24,11,246/- in AY 2019- 20 and 2020-21 respectively. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-prosecution. Paragraph 3 and 3.1 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order clearly narates the non-compliance in both years.
5. Before us, the assessee was not represented by anyone. Therefore, we heard Shri Raghunath, Ld. CIT-DR, who argued the cases vehemently and prayed for dismissal of both appeals. The Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to various paras of orders of the Authorities below, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below; Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee tactfully avoided to escape the requisite investigations by the Ld. AO/CIT(A). Therefore, he prayed for dismissing both S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur appeals. However, on our specific query, he reluctantly admitted for remanding these cases back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
We have heard Ld. CIT-DR and have perused the material available on the records. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided any of appeals pending before him/her after discussing the issues in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders though he, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration.
It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him, whether or not the issues have been raised by the assessee before him. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.).
We take note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliances consistently in both cases before the Authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeals without assigning his reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders. S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur In nut shell the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution as there was no submission of the assessee. In such circumstances, when the assessee has tactfully ensure consistent non-compliance not only before the Ld. AO but also before the Ld. CIT(A). In such facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was handicapped to dispose of the case on merit. Considering the facts of these cases in entirety, in the interest of justice, we, without offering any comment on merit of these cases and in view of the above observation, find deem fit to set aside both impugned orders and remand the matters back to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding both cases afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to say that the appellant assessee will cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings in both cases.
In view of the above, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/03/2026. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 20/03/2026 HKS, PS आदेशकी "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant 1. 2. ""थ"/ The Respondent S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur