NITIN CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-44(5), NEW DELHI

PDF

ITA 728/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 March 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member)2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee challenged additions totaling Rs.61,93,214/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for non-prosecution, without any discussion on the merits, as the assessee did not appear despite receiving notices.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution, emphasizing that under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, the CIT(A) must state points for determination and decide on merits, even in an ex-parte order. Citing a Bombay High Court precedent, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.

Sections Cited

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
291 CTR 614 · 2017 · HC
659 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

The captioned appeal is directed against the first appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 09.08.2019 arising from the assessment order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2014-15.

As per the captioned appeal, the assessee has challenged several additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) aggregating to Rs.61,93,214/- on various grounds.

It is seen from the record that notice of hearing was duly served upon the 3. assessee. As per the case records, none appeared from the assessee despite service of notice on several occasions. Accordingly, the matter was proceeded ex-parte.

On perusal of the first appellate order, we notice that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of non-prosecution of appeal by the assessee before him. The CIT(A) has passed a cryptic order without any cogent discussion on merit.

We straightway refer to Section 250(6) of the Act which enjoins that the CIT(A) shall state the points for determination before it and the decision shall be rendered on such points along with reasons for the decision. Thus, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to deal with the ground on merits even in ex parte order. In view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution. This view is also taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.). A bare glance of the order of the CIT(A) shows that CIT(A) has not addressed itself on various points placed for its determination at all and dismissed the appeal of assessee for default in non appearance. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays role of both adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) could not have shunned the appeal for non- compliance without addressing the issue on merits.