Case Law Details
Himat Khandu Patil Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed an assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes after holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] could not dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. The appeal challenged the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14, arising from an assessment order passed under Sections 143(3) read with 147.
The assessee raised several grounds, including that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal arbitrarily, violated the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, confirmed the assessed income and addition under Section 69A without considering relevant documents, and passed a non-speaking, mechanical order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits.
During the hearing before the Tribunal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment request was filed. The Tribunal therefore proceeded ex parte after hearing the Departmental Representative and examining the record. It found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating any of the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that such adjudication is mandatory under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. It relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT (Central) v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which held that once an appeal is filed, the CIT(A) is required to dispose of it on merits. The High Court had explained that Sections 250(4), 250(6), and 251 of the Act obligate the appellate authority to conduct such further inquiry as necessary, determine the points for consideration, record decisions on each point with reasons, and exercise powers that are co-terminous with those of the Assessing Officer. It further held that the Act does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal merely because the assessee does not prosecute it.
Applying this principle, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was required to decide the appeal on merits and had no authority to dismiss it for non-prosecution. Since the appellate order failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal as required by law, it could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing before deciding the appeal afresh. The assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2013-14 on 20.01.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 14.12.2018.
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Appellate Authority, in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.
2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority, has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principle of “audi alteram partem.”
3. That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Appellate Authority, has erred in confirming the income assessed by the Ld. AO at Rs. 10,51,180/- without appreciating the correct facts of the case.
4.That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,51,180/- u/s 69A of the IT Act on account of unexplained money without giving sufficient opportunity to submit the relevant documents in this regard.
5. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority, has erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant by simply concluding that the appellant was not able to substantiate his claim and no documentary evidences against the addition made by the Ld. AO have been provided by the appellant.
6. That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant by merely concluding that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal filed as no response could be filed to the notices issued during the course of the impugned appellate proceedings.
7. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Appellate Authority has not adjudicated the matter on the basis of merits of the case or discussing various grounds of appeal and statement of facts submitted by the appellant, thereby dismissing the appeal without giving any reasoning behind it.
8. That, the Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in passing the impugned appellate order in a very hastingly manner by simply highlighting the impugned assessment order and without giving any reasoning for the same thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by grossly passing a non-speaking order.
9.That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority, has passed the appellate order in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
10. That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.
11. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.
12. Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.”
3. Findings and analysis:
3.1 None appeared for the Assessee on the date of hearing. No adjournment letter was filed. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte qua the Assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non- prosecution. The Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee.
3.2 Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds, which is mandatory u/s 250(6) of the Act.
3.3 The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr. CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under :
Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act.
Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn.
Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote.
4. Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that Ld. CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and Ld. CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution.
5. In view of the above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th June, 2026
Author Bio
