ASHOK BANWARILAL GUPTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. WARD 34(1) (1) , MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K(SMC)" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ashok Gupta (HUF) 702, Concord CHS, NS Road No. 10, JVPD Scheme Juhu Circle, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai- 400049 [PAN: AAAHA4357A] …………… Appellant Ward 34(1)(1), Vs Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi Date Conclusion of hearing : 07.08.2024 Pronouncement of order : 19.08.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. 1. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 16/05/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. When the appeal was taken for hearing, none was present on behalf of the Appellant. On perusal of impugned order, dated 16/05/2023, passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act we find that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal of the Appellant on merits. As per provisions contained in Section 250 of the Act, whether an assessee appears before the CIT(A) or Assessment Year: 2012-13 not, it is the statutory obligation of the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal on merits. Section 250(6) of the Act lays down that the order passed by the CIT(A) shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination; the decision thereon; and the reason for the decision. [Marvel Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai, dated 19/07/2022, ITA No. 779/Mum/2022]. The scheme of Section 250 of the Act does not visualize any situation in which an appeal can be summarily dismissed by the CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the order, dated 16/05/2023, passed by the CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication as per law. We note that despite several opportunities having been granted, the assessee failed to file written submissions and/or place on record relevant documents before the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to pursue the appeal diligently and not to seek adjournments unnecessarily. It is clarified that in case the assessee fails to enter appearance and file submission/documents before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the appeal on merits based upon the material on record.