Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order by the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal against an assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, stating the assessee was not interested in pursuing it.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of an appeal on merits, irrespective of whether the assessee appears. Section 250 of the Act requires the CIT(A) to decide on merits and not dismiss summarily.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and thereby violated the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 250, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, K(SMC
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K(SMC)" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Parul Samir Shah, 7, 391/b Barsana Building, Shankar Matham Road, Matunga (C.R.) Mumbai - 400019 [PAN: AMJPS9893E] …………… Appellant ITO, Ward 20(2)(1), Vs Piramal Chambers, Dr SS Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh For the Respondent/Department : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi Date Conclusion of hearing : 06.08.2024 Pronouncement of order : 19.08.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 12/04/2024, 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 2018-19, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 10/03/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The Assessee has, inter alia, raised the following grounds of Assessment Year: 2018-19 appeal:
“Ground 1: Validity of Appeal Proceedings 1. The Hon'ble CITIA) erred in not giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before dismissing the appeal, thereby violating the principle of natural justice.
2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has failed to understand that the appellant being an housewife and not having enough technological knowledge was unable to respond to hearing notice issued online on Income Tax Portal.
The learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal filed by your appellant on the ground that the appellant was not aggrieved with the assessment order impugned herein and is not interested in persuading the same instead of deciding the case on merits.
4. Your appellant prays that the matter may please be restored to the Hon'ble CIT(A) for deciding the case on merits.
3. We have heard both the sides on the above ground and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, dated 12/04/2024, passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act we find that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits and has dismissed the same observing that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal. As per provisions contained in Section 250 of the Act, whether an assessee appears before the CIT(A) or 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) disregarding the material on record. Therefore, in view of 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 the aforesaid, we hold that the order, dated 12/04/2024, passed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable in law as the CIT(A) was required to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, order dated 12/04/2024, 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.
In terms of above, Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds raised in the appeal are dismissed as being infructuous.
In result, in terms of paragraph 4 above, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.