Case Law Details
Golden Play Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits, especially legal grounds like validity of reopening u/s 148.
The case involved an addition of ₹75 lakh u/s 68 for alleged accommodation entries. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, merely concurring with the AO, without:
- Independently examining the facts, or
- Deciding the legal challenge to reopening, which goes to the root of jurisdiction
The Tribunal emphasized:
- CIT(A) is a quasi-judicial authority with co-terminus powers with AO
- It is mandatory to pass a speaking order addressing all grounds raised
- Even in absence of assessee, appeal must be decided on merits based on record
- Jurisdictional issues (like reopening) cannot be ignored
Accordingly, the ITAT:
- Set aside the CIT(A)’s order
- Restored the matter for fresh adjudication on all grounds, including reopening validity
- Directed providing proper opportunity of hearing
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, reinforcing that non-prosecution ≠ dismissal without adjudication.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
1. This appeal by the assessee arises from the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for A.Y. 2020–21, arising from the assessment framed under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act on the basis of information alleging that the assessee had received accommodation entries from certain entities. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- from M/s Covet Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and, holding that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) raising, inter alia, grounds challenging the validity of reopening under section 148 as well as the addition made under section 68 of the Act.
4. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) noted that despite several opportunities, the assessee did not appear or furnish submissions during appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal holding that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and, on merits also, concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer without any independent discussion.
5. The grievance of the assessee before us is that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte and has failed to adjudicate the grounds raised, particularly the legal ground challenging the validity of reopening, which goes to the root of the assessment.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is a settled position in law that the first appellate authority is a quasi-judicial authority and is duty bound to adjudicate each of the grounds raised before it by passing a speaking order. The powers of the Ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer and he is required to independently examine the issues arising from the assessment order.
7. In the present case, we find that though the assessee had raised specific legal grounds challenging the validity of reopening under section 148 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has not recorded any finding on the said issue. The impugned order shows that the appeal has primarily been dismissed for non-prosecution and the findings of the Assessing Officer have been upheld without independent adjudication.
8. In our considered view, even in a case where the assessee does not appear, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to decide the appeal on merits based on material available on record and cannot summarily dismiss the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised. More particularly, a legal ground relating to jurisdiction, such as validity of reopening, is required to be adjudicated in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate all the grounds raised by the assessee, including the legal grounds relating to reopening, afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/04/2026
Author Bio
