MANISHA MANOJ LUNAWAT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7 (2), PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A), Panaji [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.01.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and has not filed return of income for the assessment year 2012-13. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 05.12.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.85,88,811/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.5,58,512/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the issue in appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the CIT(A) while passing the ex-parte order had not adjudicated the issue raised in appeal on merits, instead the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution of appeal. This approach of the CIT(A) is totally unreasonable and unjustified. The CIT(A) fell in serious error by not adjudicating the issues in appeal on merits. The settled positions of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In the present case, the CIT(A) had fell into serious error by not disposing of the appeal on merits. Therefore, we vacate this finding of the CIT(A). In the circumstances, we remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) and direct to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.