Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2013-14, which upheld an AO's disallowance of Rs. 48.53 lakhs under Section 147 read with Section 144B related to income application for asset acquisition. The CIT(A) had dismissed the Assessee's appeal in limine due to non-prosecution without deciding on merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 23-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons bonafide. Relying on High Court precedent, it held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording the Assessee a proper hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without considering its merits, and if the case should be remanded for a fresh decision on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22/02/2025 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.
(Sane Guruji Manav Sewa Sangh) 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 23 days in filing the instant appeal, on which Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with duly sworn affidavit dated 21/05/2025. Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay, as bonafide, genuine and unintentional, delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that Assessing Officer (AO), vide order dated 14/03/2022, u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, disallowed the claim made to the tune of Rs.48,53,020/- on account of application of income, towards acquisition of movable and immovable assets.
The Assessee, though being aggrieved, challenged the said addition/disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities eventually made no compliance, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine due to non-prosecution, but not on merits. Thus, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that Ld. Commissioner cannot dismiss the appeal in limine on non- prosecution and therefore, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued and file relevant submissions/documents. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Order is pronounced 24.09.2025 as per rule 34(5) of the Income Tax {Appellate Tribunal} Rule 1963.