Manisha Dhananjay Holkar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed for Non-Appearance Alone – CIT(A) Must Decide on Merits & Give Speaking Order under Section 250(6)-Ex-Parte Order without Reasoning Invalid – ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A)
Assessee, engaged in fertilizer & later DWGS trading, had not filed return for AY 2015-16. Based on information under NMS module showing cash deposits of ₹73.04 lakh in SBI, the case was reopened u/s 148. AO completed reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B treating cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A, assessing income at ₹73.04 lakh.
Before CIT(A)/NFAC, Assessee contended that deposits were from business sales duly reflected in turnover of ₹75.10 lakh. However, the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte observing non-response to notices, citing B.N. Bhattacharjee (118 ITR 461) & Chemipol vs UOI (Bombay HC) to hold that an appeal not pursued can be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Before Tribunal, Assessee explained that the non-compliance was not deliberate – she was a rural woman entrepreneur reliant on her accountant who had passed away, leading to lapses in compliance. She argued that CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider documents already on record, thereby violating section 250(6) which mandates a reasoned speaking order.
Tribunal observed that while CIT(A) can proceed ex-parte in absence of appearance, he is nevertheless bound to decide issues on merits, giving reasons for his decision as per section 250(6). As CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without examining the merits, the order was held invalid.
Comments are closed.