Anant Bhalchandra Hendre Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
CIT(A) Cannot Sustain Addition Without Reasoned Order — ITAT Pune Sets Aside Ex-parte Dismissal, Restores Appeal
The Pune Bench of the ITAT condoned a 123-day delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2017-18, holding that an appeal cannot be dismissed or decided mechanically for non-prosecution without complying with the mandatory requirements of section 250(6).
Key findings of the Tribunal:
- Delay condoned on sufficient cause: Relying on Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Inder Singh v. State of MP, the Tribunal adopted a liberal, justice-oriented approach and condoned the delay.
- Violation of section 250(6): Although the CIT(A)/NFAC decided the appeal ex-parte due to repeated non-compliance, the order failed to record points for determination, reasons, and findings on merits, rendering it legally unsustainable.
- Mechanical reliance on non-prosecution impermissible: While the CIT(A) may proceed ex-parte, he must still adjudicate issues on merits and pass a reasoned speaking order.
- Issues require fresh consideration: Grounds relating to validity of reopening u/s 148/148A/151 and addition of ₹47 lakh u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE (based on alleged cash loans through an entry operator) were not properly examined.
- Matter remanded with caution: The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee and liberty to pass an order as per law in case of further default.
Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
