Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to notices being sent to an email ID not regularly accessed, leading to non-compliance. The assessee argued this non-compliance was unintentional and requested the matter be sent back for adjudication on merits.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without dwelling into the merits of the case and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper opportunity to be heard and in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 250
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, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kishor Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 PAN : ETAPS5826K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Digambar Surwase Department by : Shri Manish Mehta Date of hearing : 20-01-2026 Date of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15.
There is a delay of 176 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 339, condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the order passed under section 250 by CITIA) NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal without sending physical hearing notices to appellant is illegal, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice. The appellant prays for appropriate relief.
2. On facts and circumstances of case and in laws, the order passed under section 250 by CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal on ground of non-cooperation by appellant is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principal of natural justice. The appellant prays for appropriate relief.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CITIA) NFAC erred in not passing a speaking order on submission made by appellant. The appellant prays for just, fair and appropriate relief.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submit that the order of learned A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities and facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it is liable to be quashed.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming assessment order passed on the basis of invalid notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in concluding that assessment order was passed by following decision of GKN Driveshaft vs. ITO 2003 259 ITR 19(SC) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 29 ITR 90 (Bom). 7. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming assessment reopened on the basis of vague reasons recorded. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.55,50,000/- to returned income of the appellant. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the interest charged under section 234A and section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
4. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC there was non-compliance of notice(s) of hearing and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsed the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”). The Ld. AR submitted that such non-compliance resulted because the notices were issued on email-id which was not regularly accessed by the assessee and in spite of specific request made by the assessee in Form No. 35 for not sending the notices/communication on email-id, the all notices and the impugned appellate order was sent on the assessee‟s email-id. The assessee thus being unaware about the said notices, failed to make the necessary compliances. He, therefore, urged that the matter may be sent back to the AY 2014-15 file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Ld. DR had no objection to the above request of the Ld. AR.
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to the various notice(s) issued by his Office which constrained him to decide the appeal based on the fact/material available on record. We find that the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) by making an addition of Rs.55,50,500/- to the returned income of the assessee on account of transfer of tenancy rights under the head „income from other sources‟. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO as the assessee failed to file any submission/replies before him to controvert the findings of the Ld. AO. Before us, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) was not intentional but resulted due to the reasons cited above. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the impugned order in concurrence of the order of the Ld. AO without himself dwelling into the merits of the case. No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal in spite of several opportunities. None-the-less, he has to adhere to the legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and to pass speaking order on merits as per facts and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We direct and AY 2014-15
order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.