Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, as they failed to furnish submissions or documentary evidence despite multiple hearing notices. The assessee claimed they never received the notices and had provided all details to the AO.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution and ought to have decided the issues on merits, especially when documentary evidence was on record. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution when the assessee claimed non-receipt of hearing notices.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against three different orders of CIT(A), all dated 21.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2675 & 2684/CHNY/2024 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2013-14.
At the very outset, we notice that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed for non-prosecution of its cases. In response to four hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has not furnished its submissions or any documentary evidences. Consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in-limine for non- prosecuting its cases.
The ld.AR submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority were never received by the assessee and the CIT(A) has erred in dismissed the appeals in- limine for non-prosecution. He further submitted that the assessee has submitted all the details before the AO and based on that, the CIT(A) ought have decided the appeals on merits. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its cases.
The ld.DR supported the orders of the CIT(A).
2675 & 2684/CHNY/2024
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices and since there was no response from the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. It is the claim of the ld.AR that the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority were never received by the assessee. We are of the view that the CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) ought to have decided the issues on merits when necessary documentary evidences were on record. In this context, we rely on the Raipur Bench order of the Tribunal in the case of Avdesh Jain v. ITO, reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 730. In the interest of justice and equity, we remit the matter back to the files of the CIT(A) for consideration of issues on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to represent its cases. Accordingly the issues raised in these appeals are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
2675 & 2684/CHNY/2024
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024 at Chennai.