Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 31.03.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Credit Cooperative Society. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2016-17 was filed on 31.03.2018 declaring loss of Rs.8,05,170/-, which remained unverified. In response to notice u/s.148, the assessee filed the return on 19.01.2022 declaring loss of Rs.8,05,170/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 30.03.2022 passed u./s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act. While doing so, the AO made couple of additions; (1) cash deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- in the account of Mr.Darji Prakash Kumar transferred to M/s. Abjayoni Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. through RTGS and (2) cash deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- in the account of M/s. Poonam Travel, Prop. Shri Prakash Babanji Rathore transferred to M/s. Dyaneshwari Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Limited through RTGS, treating the above cash deposits as unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE.
Aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the matter was called on, none represented on behalf of the assessee. We therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.
The ld. Departmental Representative placing reliance on the orders of the authorities submits that no interference by this Tribunal is called for as the assessee is recalcitrant in pursuing its case before the authorities.
We heard the Ld. DR and carefully examined the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We find the order of CIT(A)/NFAC is very cryptic and without any factual discussion of the aspects relating to the additions made by the AO. There is no reasoning whatsoever mentioned in dismissing the appeal. It is a trite law that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have dealt with the merits of the issues in appeal, even in the case of ex-parte order. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not gone into the merits of the issues in appeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held as under :
Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b)of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A)would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2)of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an a ssessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. Infact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Infact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn.
Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b)and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote.
Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for remand of the matter to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo consideration in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to pass a reasoned order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 29th day of July, 2024.