Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to respond to notices. The original assessment involved an addition of 25% of alleged bogus purchases based on information received by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Such dismissal is contrary to the scheme of the Act.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits of the case?
Sections Cited
69C, 147, 144B, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 15.10.2025, for Assessment Year 2018-19.
A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessment in the case of assessee for AY 2018-19 was reopened on the basis of information received, that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.81,95,949/- from the alleged shell entity M/s. Balaji Trading Company. The assessee is engaged in trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. During the course of assessment proceedings,
• party confirmation of accounts; • invoices, bill wise transport details; • bank statements highlighting transactions for payment; • stock statement showing inward supply of material, • GST returns, etc.
Not convinced with the documents furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases i.e. Rs.20,41,487/- u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Against the assessment order dated 06.02.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Since, the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by CIT(A), the CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings dismissed appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently supporting the impugned order submitted that the assessee has indulged in obtaining accommodation entry from bogus supplier. The AO after examining the documents furnished by the assessee made addition of 25% of the bogus purchases. Since, the assessee failed to make submission before the CIT(A) despite repeated notices, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non-prosecution.
I have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non‑prosecution and did not adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits. It is a well settled law that the CIT(A), being the First Appellate Authority, is statutorily
required under section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order on merits. The CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss the appeal for non‑prosecution without adjudicating the issues arising from the assessment order. Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution is contrary to the scheme of the Act and settled judicial principles. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 15th day of December, 2025.