Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the assessment order for AY 2017-18 was dismissed in-limine by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee filed an affidavit stating non-compliance was due to extensive travel to areas with poor internet connectivity, preventing access to notices and the income-tax portal during the relevant period.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance to be justified. It noted that under Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) is obligated to pass an order on merit even if the assessee fails to appear. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in-limine for non-prosecution without considering the assessee's reasons for non-compliance and the mandate of Section 250(6) to decide on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order 08.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution.
The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order without considering the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order without considering The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order without considering The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order without considering the materials/ evidence available on records as part of assessment records and the materials/ evidence available on records as part of assessment records and the materials/ evidence available on records as part of assessment records and without calling for the same from the Assessing Officer. lling for the same from the Assessing Officer.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in issuing 4 notices over a period of only 24 days The learned CIT(A) erred in issuing 4 notices over a period of only 24 days The learned CIT(A) erred in issuing 4 notices over a period of only 24 days (about 3 and a half weeks) without giving sufficient time to the appellant to (about 3 and a half weeks) without giving sufficient time to the appellant to (about 3 and a half weeks) without giving sufficient time to the appellant to respond to the notice. The learned CIT(A) further erred respond to the notice. The learned CIT(A) further erred in completing the appeal in completing the appeal proceedings in a hasty manner. proceedings in a hasty manner. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in a summary manner The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in a summary manner The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in a summary manner without specifically disposing off or discussing the grounds and facts put forth without specifically disposing off or discussing the grounds and facts put forth without specifically disposing off or discussing the grounds and facts put forth by the appellant in the petition. by the appellant in the petition. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment proceedings which were T(A) erred in upholding the assessment proceedings which were T(A) erred in upholding the assessment proceedings which were initiated based on incorrect information and which did not pertain to the initiated based on incorrect information and which did not pertain to the initiated based on incorrect information and which did not pertain to the appellant, without discussing the merits, decisions and reasons for the decision. appellant, without discussing the merits, decisions and reasons for the decision. appellant, without discussing the merits, decisions and reasons for the decision. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment proceedings which was the assessment proceedings which was initiated without the sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, initiated without the sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, initiated without the sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, being the specified authority without discussing the merits, decisions and being the specified authority without discussing the merits, decisions and being the specified authority without discussing the merits, decisions and reasons for the decision, reasons for the decision, 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding a The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding additions which were not covered by the dditions which were not covered by the reasons/information based on which reassessment proceedings were initiated, reasons/information based on which reassessment proceedings were initiated, reasons/information based on which reassessment proceedings were initiated, where the reasons/information admittedly were not pertaining to the appellant where the reasons/information admittedly were not pertaining to the appellant where the reasons/information admittedly were not pertaining to the appellant without providing or discussing the reasons for the same without providing or discussing the reasons for the same. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding additions Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding additions Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding additions which were not even proposed in the show cause notice. which were not even proposed in the show cause notice. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions under section 69A of the The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions under section 69A of the The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions under section 69A of the Act, despite the fact that explanation of al Act, despite the fact that explanation of all the amounts credited in bank were l the amounts credited in bank were provided during the assessment proceedings. provided during the assessment proceedings. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that limine for non the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal (A) has dismissed the appeal in-limine persecution. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submit . The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that . The Ld. counsel for the assessee submit notices had been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) within been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) within a period of one been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) within month from 06.02.2024 to 01.03.2024 month from 06.02.2024 to 01.03.2024 only, but the assessee was ut the assessee was travelling during that during that period in places like ‘Andaman and Nicobar Andaman and Nicobar Islands’ having poor internet connectivity thus, the having poor internet connectivity thus, the assessee could having poor internet connectivity thus, the not accessed to the income income-tax portal/e-mails . Hence, . Hence, he could not comply with the notices issued. The Ld. counsel for the assessee the notices issued. The Ld. counsel for the assessee the notices issued. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee in this regard and submitted has filed an affidavit of the assessee in this regard and submitted has filed an affidavit of the assessee in this regard and submitted that matter may be restored back to the that matter may be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after considering the submission of the assessee. afresh after considering the submission of the assessee. afresh after considering the submission of the assessee.
On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed restoring the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). opposed restoring the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard rival submission We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused of the parties and perused relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has levant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has levant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in absence of any documents dismissed the appeal of the assessee in absence of any documents dismissed the appeal of the assessee in absence of any documents or submission filed during the appellate proceedings despite service or submission filed during the appellate proceedings despite service or submission filed during the appellate proceedings despite service of notice. We have also observed that the notices We have also observed that the notices had had been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on four occasion i.e. on four occasion i.e. 06.02.2024; 13.02.2024 ; 06.02.2024; 13.02.2024 ; 21.02.2024 and 01.03.2024. The assessee has filed an affidavit for 21.02.2024 and 01.03.2024. The assessee has filed an affidavit for 21.02.2024 and 01.03.2024. The assessee has filed an affidavit for non-compliance of these notices. The relevant para of the affidavit is compliance of these notices. The relevant para of the affidavit is compliance of these notices. The relevant para of the affidavit is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:
“I say that I was travelling I say that I was travelling extensively between the period of 6 February 2024 to 6 extensively between the period of 6 February 2024 to 6 March 2024 to many places like Andaman and Nicobar Islands and inlands of March 2024 to many places like Andaman and Nicobar Islands and inlands of March 2024 to many places like Andaman and Nicobar Islands and inlands of Murud Janjira with limited/no network connectivity to access emails when all the Murud Janjira with limited/no network connectivity to access emails when all the Murud Janjira with limited/no network connectivity to access emails when all the hearing notices were issued by the Commissione hearing notices were issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and r of Income Tax (Appeals) and also in such situation wherever there is intermittent connectivity, there is an also in such situation wherever there is intermittent connectivity, there is an also in such situation wherever there is intermittent connectivity, there is an overload of emails/ messages and thus human possibility of something going overload of emails/ messages and thus human possibility of something going overload of emails/ messages and thus human possibility of something going unnoticed on the mobile phone. Due to this I could not keep track of al mobile phone. Due to this I could not keep track of al mobile phone. Due to this I could not keep track of all the emails and SMS notifications on realtime basis. Further I did not realise that these notices and SMS notifications on realtime basis. Further I did not realise that these notices and SMS notifications on realtime basis. Further I did not realise that these notices pertained to my personal matter which the office does not have any access to. pertained to my personal matter which the office does not have any access to. pertained to my personal matter which the office does not have any access to. I say that due to the reason mentioned above I could not file any response or I say that due to the reason mentioned above I could not file any response or I say that due to the reason mentioned above I could not file any response or submission before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when the appeal ubmission before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when the appeal ubmission before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when the appeal was fixed for hearing.” ” 4.1 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has mainly dismissed the appeal We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has mainly dismissed the appeal We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has mainly dismissed the appeal in-limine following the decision in the case of CIT v. B.N. following the decision in the case of CIT v. B.N. following the decision in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya reported in 118 ITR 4 Bhattacharya reported in 118 ITR 461 and other decisions without 61 and other decisions without deciding the issue in dispute on merit. deciding the issue in dispute on merit. Under the provisions of Under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass an order section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass an order section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass an order on merit even in case of non on merit even in case of non-compliance on the part of the assessee. compliance on the part of the assessee.
Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has justified the reasons unsel for the assessee has justified the reasons unsel for the assessee has justified the reasons for non-compliance of the notices and therefore, compliance of the notices and therefore, in t in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the orde we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and r of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue in dispute involved in the appeal to the file of the the issue in dispute involved in the appeal to the file of the the issue in dispute involved in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. Since, we have already allowed the submission of the assessee. Since, we have already allowed the submission of the assessee. Since, we have already allowed the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee the other grounds are ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee the other grounds a ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee the other grounds a rendered merely academic and therefore, we are not required to rendered merely academic and therefore, we are not required to rendered merely academic and therefore, we are not required to adjudicate upon the same. adjudicate upon the same.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.