Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee consistently failed to appear before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-representation in ex parte proceedings, and there was a 102-day delay in filing the appeal to the Tribunal without a condonation application.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's 'recalcitrant attitude' and non-cooperation across all stages, including before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal itself. Given the consistent failure to represent the case or provide evidence, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision and upheld the order, dismissing the assessee's appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by CIT(A) for non-representation was justified given the assessee's consistent non-cooperative attitude and failure to appear at various stages, including before the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10154094 dated 26/09/2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
None represented on behalf of the assessee nor the adjournment application has also not been filed. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. Sr.DR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-representation. It was a submission that even before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not appeared and non- complied. It was the submission that even before the Tribunal, the assessee has been non-complied.
Vidya Agarwal Vs ITO 4. We have considered the submissions and also noticed about recalcitrant attitude of the assessee. A perusal of the assessment order of the Assessing Officer shows that the Assessing Officer has been extremely reasonable in issuing physical notices to the assessee on 02/01/2022. Admittedly, the mistakes could happen, the assessee stood unrepresented before the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee has filed appeal against the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) within time and after filing the appeal, the assessee again went quite. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in ex parte proceedings. There was delay of 102 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which, the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay. Before the Tribunal also, the assessee also conveniently kept quite. Notices have been issued to the assessee on the e-mail address which is provided by the assessee. In any case, as the assessee has not shown any cause for non-representation before the lower authorities and because the assessee has not rectified his behaviour in not representing his appeal before the authorities even after filing the appeals, this recalcitrant attitude of the assessee cannot be permitted to be carry forward. The assessee has also been unable to produce any evidence before the authorities below. Now before us, the assessee has not appeared nor any application has been filed. It is noticed that such non-cooperative attitude are being adopted for the purpose of subsequently raising legal grounds after waiting for the limitation for reopening and other provisions to expire. This being so, considering such attitude being adopted, we are of the view that