Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Mansor Foods India Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the restaurant business, had an addition of Rs. 1,94,87,412/- made by the AO for unaccounted import value for AY 2022-23. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's subsequent appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The ITAT condoned a 7-day delay in filing the appeal, noting technical issues. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without framing points of determination or deciding on merits, remanding the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits; Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT due to technical issues.
Sections Cited
Companies Act, 1956, 143(3), 144B, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 03.10.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of running a restaurant. The return of income for AY 2022-23 was filed on 30.11.2022. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward- 1(1), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 22.03.2024 passed u/s. 143(3) w.r.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who 3. 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 appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred due to technical issues encountered on the portal of the ITAT. Therefore, the delay is not wilful or deliberate. Hence, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal 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 I am 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. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025. 9.