PURSHOTTAM NARAIN SHUKLA,UNNAO vs. ITO WARD -2(4), UNNAO-NEW

The grounds of appeal

1. Because the “CIT(A)” was not justified in dismissing the appeal by passing the impugned order ex-parte without affording due and effective opportunity of being heard to the “appellant” and consequently the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and matter restored to “CIT(A)” for passing the order a-fresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the “appellant”.

Because the authorities below have passed the respective orders without considering/appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made and the evidences furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings.

Because the order appealed against is contrary to fact, law and principles of natural justice.”

In this case, vide assessment order dated 24/12/2019, the assessee was filed return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at Rs.5,48,770/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23/09/2018 which was served upon the assessee. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 18/10/2019 which was served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of corrugated boxes and has rental Page 3 of 5 income from house property besides agriculture income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on a total income of 56,48,770/- by making an addition of Rs.51,00,000/- u/s 69A, read with Section 115BBE of the Act, treating the unexplained money deposited in the bank account of the assessee.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 27/01/2024, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The present appeal before us has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 27/01/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A).

At the time of hearing before us, the Assessee was represented by Shri. P. K. Kapoor, (C.A), and Revenue was represented by Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Ld. Departmental Representative. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on merits of the additions made. He further submitted that the assessee’s appeal was dismissed in limine for want of prosecution without any discussion on the merits of the additions. He submitted that the issues in dispute should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order on merits of the case after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR for Revenue expressed no objection to this.

We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials available on records. On perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 27/01/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued notices, which however, were not complied with by the assessee. Taking adverse view of non-compliance from Page 4 of 5 assessee’s side the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for want of prosecution. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has statutory duty, prescribed u/s 250(6) of the Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case whether or not there was any representation from the assessee’s side. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the assessee’s appeal, is required to be in writing, and it is and the order is further required to contain the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, it is the statutory duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits of the case. Thus, dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine, for want of prosecution, without going into the merits of the case was erroneous on the part of the Ld. CIT(A).