Accuscan Daignostic Service Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal heard an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee challenged the appellate order on multiple grounds, including violation of principles of natural justice, denial of adequate opportunity of hearing, mechanical disposal of the appeal without application of mind, and confirmation of various additions without proper adjudication. The additions confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) included amounts relating to professional or technical fees, rental income, sale of property, and unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee also contended that the appellate authority failed to consider the pendency of a high-pitched assessment application submitted before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and communicated to NFAC.
At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals).
After examining the record, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC had not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Instead, the appeal was dismissed merely for non-compliance. The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority failed to independently examine the issues involved in the appeal.
The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF). The High Court had held that once an appeal is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellate authority is obligated to dispose of the appeal on merits. The judgment clarified that under Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to make necessary enquiries, determine the points arising for consideration, and render decisions with reasons. It was further held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution.
Relying upon the above judgment, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC was required to adjudicate the appeal on merits and could not dismiss it solely because of non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal therefore set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication. The appellate authority was directed to provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the appeal afresh.
Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
