What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) as the appeal was not decided on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution as the assessee, an illiterate lady, could not realize the notices. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds on merits. The assessee requested an opportunity to present its case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present the case.

Smt Radha Bai, Bhopal vs The ITO3 (2), Bhopal | s.250(6) | ITAT Indore 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 25.05.2023Pronounced: 29.05.2023

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.01.2023 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1.That the Ld. AO was not justified in passing the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the Ld. CITIA) was not justified in confirming the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be Page 1 of 3 Radha bai Page 2 of 3 annulled.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant to furnish documents or reply in support of the claim and confirming the addition; and Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits.

The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,51,325/-in respect of cost of improvement in respect of capital gains.

The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.10,37,273/-in respect of exemption from capital gains.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,000/-in respect of expenses on transfer of capital asset

At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that Ld. ICIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated. He has further submitted that the assessee is illiterate lady and could not realize notice issued by the CIT(A) and proceedings pending in the Faceless Appeal made. Thus, he has pleaded that the impugned order may be set aside and the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly submitted that since the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution therefore, the matter may be remanded to the record of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

4. Having considered the rival submission and relevant material on record, at the outset, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution when no-body appeared and reply to the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Since the appeal of the assessee was not adjudicated on merits of the issue raised in the grounds of appeal, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not as per the provision of section 250(6) of the Act. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned 6 of lis of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remand to the record of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding same afresh after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5. Before parting with this matter we may point out that the assessee has raised ground no.1 & 2 first time before the Tribunal without seeking the leave of the Tribunal. Accordingly ground no.1 & 2 are not remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) however, the assessee is at liberty to raise any additional ground before Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2023.

SMT RADHA BAI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO3 (2), BHOPAL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments