Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing Plywood, Veneers and fruits, filed a return for AY 2017-18. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3), making various additions. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of an appeal on its merits, even if dealt with ex parte. Citing judicial precedents, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal de novo on merits after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex parte for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, and what is the proper procedure in such cases.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 06.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assesseeis an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of Plywood, Veneers and fruits. The return of income for AY 2017-18 Shanavas Hassan was filed on 29.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 29.01,800/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Ward-1, Aluva (hereinafter called "the AO") vied order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,75,61,219/-. While doing so, the AO made additions on account of unexplained cash deposit made during demonetization period, unexplained agricultural income, interest received from bank, unexplained unsecured loan, etc. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 and a few other orders.
Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The assessee filed a letter dated 24.01.2025 seeking adjournment on the ground the partner of the CA firm is out of station due to some emergency. The request for adjournment is declined, as the matter can be disposed of without entering into the merits, as the CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal without entering into the merits of the case. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned CIT-DR.
We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution u/s. 250(6) of the Act. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal Shanavas Hassan exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025. 6.