Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, Dev Fuels, a firm running a petro pump, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appellant's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, which was originally filed against an AO order under Section 143(3) making a significant addition to income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding it on merits. Citing established legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the CIT(A)'s duty to dispose of appeals on merits, even in ex-parte proceedings. The case was therefore remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the case, and the extent of the CIT(A)'s duty to hear appeals on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3)
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, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a firm running a petro pump. The appellant filed the return of income for AY 2014- 15 on 20.01.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,07,880/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kasaragod (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 19.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income
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 learned A.R. has filed a letter seeking adjournment on the ground the senior partner of the CA firm is out of country. 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.
I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. 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 Dev Fuels (Mavungal Agencies) 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