Balkishan Mohanlal Gandhi Vs ITO (ITAT Nagpur)
Two Notices with Short Deadlines Not Enough – CIT(A) Cannot Dismiss for Non-Prosecution Without Speaking Order
Assessee filed appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 19.02.2024 which had dismissed his appeal for non-prosecution. It was noted that CIT(A) had issued only two notices, the first dated 02.02.2024 fixing deadline on 08.02.2024, & the second dated 12.02.2024 fixing deadline on 16.02.2024. Tribunal observed that such short compliance windows did not amount to granting effective opportunity of hearing.
Tribunal further held that CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking order as mandated u/s 250(6). Since principles of natural justice were violated, the order was unsustainable.
Accordingly, Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) & restored the matter for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to Assessee. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT NAGPUR
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 19/02/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2018–19.
2. It appears that the appellate order has been passed on 19/02/2024, by sending only two notices i.e., one on 02/02/2024 with a deadline fixed on 08/02/2024 and second notice dated 12/02/2024, with a dead line fixed on 16/02/2024. Thus, it is apparent that there was no effective opportunity granted to the assessee to present his case. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non–prosecution and has not passed a speaking order under section 260(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the case is fit to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re– adjudication. We order accordingly.
