THE GOKAK TALUKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCED CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LTD,GOKAK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELGAUM

Without touching the merits and grounds of the appeal, Ld. AR submitted that, the impugned order has suffered from (a) violation of principle of natural justice and (b) from the compliance of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. The twofold grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is that, except the receipt of notice acknowledging the institution of appeal the assessee was neither served any notices nor the impugned order by the Ld. NFAC. Adverting to paper-book [submitted during the course of hearing] it is averred that; all three notices of hearing were sent to email address not belonging assessee and no notice of hearing was received on the registered email address quoted in Form No 35. Therefore, the said proceedings were conducted in sheer violation of principle of natural justice thus rendered itself irregular. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 5

Without touching the merits of the case, we have heard both the sides on former limited ground and carefully examined the facts of the case. Admittedly, the appellant could not cause any appearance before the first appellate authority which led to ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. NFAC. From the screenshots submitted on record it is evident that during the course of first appellate proceedings the Ld. NFAC issued three notices one after other vide notice dt. 15/04/2024, 25/04/2024 & 04/06/2024 through email on sureshsholapurmath@yahoo.co.in as against the email address notified in Form No 35 for receipt of communication i.e. tapcms.gokak@gmail.com. There is hardly any deprecative material placed on record by the respondent to suggest the failure of appellant to comply with former three notices but for none-receipt of notices. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 5

Insofar ex-parte dismissal of appeal without dealing with the merit of issue is concerned, we note that; the restriction placed by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act obligates the Ld. NFAC to adjudicate the issue conclusively either by confirming or annulling the addition or reducing or enhancing the addition made by the assessing officer without the right to remand the matter back. However, while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act, the Ld. NFAC was inviably required to state subject matter or point of determination, its decision thereon and clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. A plain reading of section 250 of the Act reveals that, it is incumbent upon the Ld. NFAC to make necessary enquiries before passing an order and while doing so it demands it to decide each of the issue/ground on merits even in ex-parte proceedings. In view of Section ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 5 250(4) r.w.s. 250(6) of the Act, Ld. NFAC is powerless to dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution without dealing with merits of the case. This proposition finds fortified in the decision of ‘CIT Vs Premkumar Arjundas’ [2016, 240 Taxman 133 (Bom)].

In the instant case, per contra we find that the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal of the appellant in the event of non-prosecution but without adjudicating it in terms of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. Thus, the impugned adjudication left the rights & liabilities of the rival parties effectively undetermined. This adjudication in our considered view is inconsonance with s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act, therefore deserving to be set-aside on this score as well for de-novo adjudication. Ergo ordered accordingly.

The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.