COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1 (2), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHEMBERS
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not appear before the first appellate authority despite multiple notices, the CIT(A) was expected to follow the procedure laid down in Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires stating points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings and to refrain from seeking adjournments except for compelling reasons. The CIT(A) was also directed to ensure observance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merit of the case. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,45,01,730/- representing unspent accumulation from earlier years (A.Y. 2006-07) to the assessee's income. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals) [NFAC]. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, noting that the assessee had failed to appear on eleven occasions despite notices. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, challenging the CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, thereby violating principles of natural justice, when the assessee had grounds relating to the approval of the learned CIT(Exemptions) for subsequent assessment years and the utilization of surplus funds for educational purposes in A.Y. 2010-11? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order ignoring the approval of the learned CIT(Exemptions) for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2013-14 and also ignoring that the surplus from A.Y. 2006-07 was utilized for educational purposes in A.Y. 2010-11, aligning with the trust's objectives. Revenue's Contentions: None recorded in the judgment. The learned DR appeared, but no specific arguments were detailed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH
Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 1, Mumbai/11892/2015–16 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2012-13, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal for non prosecution.
2 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay 2. The brief facts of the appeal state that the assessee filed its return of income on 01.10.2012. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) r/w 142(1) were issued. In response to the aforesaid notices, assessee trust represented before assessing officer through Mr. Manish H Mehta, CA and filed details called for. After examining the response of the assessee, learned assessing officer added in the assessee’s income for A.Y. 2012–13, unspent accumulation of Rs. 1,45,01,730/– of earlier years for A.Y. 2006–07. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars and for concealment of income. Aggrieved by assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal for non prosecution.
Assessee filed this appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has passed ex–parte impugned order ignoring the approval of learned CIT(Exemptions) for A.Y. 2008–09 to 2013–14 and further ignoring the fact that the surplus amount of A.Y. 2006–07 was utilized in A.Y. 2010–11 for educational purpose in accordance with the object of the appellant trust.
None appeared for the assessee. Heard learned DR and perused the material on records.
It appears from the perusal of impugned order that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority despite notices on eleven occasions. Learned CIT(A), thus dismissed assessee’s appeal for non prosecution.
We find that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in default of assessee. Learned CIT(A) was however expected to state the points for determination, the decision there on and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. We are conscious of the fact, that assessee has not turned up before the first appellate authority in response to the notices issued on various occasions. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, 3 ITA no. 4546/MUM/2023 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and co–orperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the first appellate authority for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observations on the merit of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.10.2023 is set aside. The appeal is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11.07.2024.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026