UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, KOLHAPUR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Kolhapur [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 02.07.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14.

The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in disallowing of u/s 40(a)(ia) at Rs. 2,29,509/-. 2) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in disallowing the provision of U/s 23(4)(a) and disallowing of Rs. 9,56,344/- in respect of all the properties including self occupied property. 3) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming interest under section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act, 1961. 4) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) The appellant craves for leave to amend, modify or add to any of the above grounds of appeal and / or take any additional ground of appeal, if necessary.”

Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass an ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine placing reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abhay P. Kalbhor vs. DCIT in for assessment years 1989-90 to 1999-2000.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we decide the issue in the present appeal on merits after hearing the ld. CIT-DR. 7. We heard ld. CIT-DR and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. Now, the law is settled to the extent that the ld. CIT(A) is bound to dispose of the appeal on merit even in the case of ex-parte orders. The settled positions of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits.