KAPIL NARULA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 36(3) DELHI, INCOME TAX OFFICE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) lacks the power under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution in a summary manner. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against an assessment order for AY 2017-18, which included additions under sections 143(3) and 69A and interest under 234B/234C, was dismissed by the NFAC-CIT(A) for non-prosecution, without addressing the merits of the case. The assessee subsequently appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) has the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution summarily and without considering the merits, and if such dismissal violates principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.08.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
The ground of appeal
filed by assessee, reads as under: “1. That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act.
2. That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act in violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act without application of mind to the material on record.
4. That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant 2 by confirming the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act making addition of Rs. 3,25,800/- to the income of the Appellant on estimation basis.
5. That the NFAC erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in not deleting the addition of Rs. 15,01,000/- to the income of the Appellant by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act.
6. That the NFAC on facts and in law erred in not deleting the interest levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 234B and 234C of the Act.
7. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. That all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 8.
3. In this case, pursuant to assessment order, upon assessee’s appeal the learned CIT(A) noted that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, he dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before ITAT.
4. Learned Counsel for the assessee prayed for an opportunity before the learned CIT(A) to properly canvas the appeal.
Per contra, learned DR did not have any serious objection to this proposition.
Upon careful consideration, I find that learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in a summary manner without passing any order on the merits of the case. I find that section 251 of the Income Tax Act does not give any power to the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I remit the issue to the file of learned
3 CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.
In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.02.2024
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
