Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18, claiming unawareness of notices due to unfamiliarity with emails/portals. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without addressing its merits, citing the assessee's non-compliance with notices.
Held
The Tribunal ruled that the Ld. CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering merits and failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper hearing.
Key Issues
Can an appeal be dismissed in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) without addressing its merits or complying with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, even if the assessee is absent?
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S.
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 10/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 04/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 06/12/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Durgaraja Veerarouthula (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal.
At the outset, learned AR submitted that the assessee is not aware of the notices served on him as he is not conversant with emails or portals. His main plank of argument is 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 appeal 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 Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. We direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned Assessing Officer in getting the matter disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournment. 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 4th March, 2025.