DEVARAAYA ATLURI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA.
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear due to severe medical conditions following a Covid infection and subsequent surgeries. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) should have addressed the merits of the case.
Held
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. The Tribunal held that even in the assessee's absence, the CIT(A) should have dealt with the matter on merits. The impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and if the order complied with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.64/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Devaraya Atluri Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward-2(1) [PAN : AQZPA6317M] Vijayawada अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, AR रधजस्व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 06/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 07/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 27/11/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (“learned CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in the case of Devaraya Atluri (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset, learned AR submitted that the assessee suffered Covid, due to the excessive administration of the Remdesivir injection there was a damage to his rib joints and he underwent surgical operations and the assessee was advised to take bed rest for a considerable period of time which resulted in nonappearance of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) on the date of hearing. Assessee filed the copies of the medical reports. The learned AR
submitted that even in the absence of the assessee since the assessment order is available before the learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) could have proceeded to advert to the merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with.
Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities, the fact remains that the learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeals on merits. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits, instead of dismissing the same in limine.
As could be seen from the record, we find that the learned CIT(A) disposed-of the appeals ex-parte, observing that various notices have been issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised.
Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained.
With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. We direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned CIT(A) in getting the matter disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th March, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (BALAKRISHNAN S.) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 07/03/2025 L.Rama, SPS Copy forwarded to: 1. Shri Devaraya Atluri, C/o Katrapati & Associates, 1-1-298/2/B/3, Sowbhagya Avenue Apts., 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar, Street No.1, Hyderabad 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada 3. The Pr.CIT, Visakhapatnam 4. The DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. GUARD File
