DEEKSHA GUPTA,NOIDA vs. ADDL/JCIT (A), NOIDA

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 11.06.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Shri Saket Sharma, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that in assessment proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.5,35,556/- in respect of loss claimed by the assessee on house property and further made addition of Rs.1,50,997/- on account of mismatch in Form no. 26AS and the income returned

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submits that several notices were issued by the CIT(A) to the assessee, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. He thus prayed for upholding the impugned order.

Both sides heard. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merits. It is a well settled law that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss appeal for non- prosecution. The First Appellate Authority is statutorily required to adjudicate the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order dealing with each ground of appeal raised by the assessee. In view of the above legal position, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) is unsustainable. It is further observed that the assessment order is also passed u/s.144 of the Act as the assessee failed to make submission before the AO as well. In the interest of justice, the case is restored to AO for de- novo assessment, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee.