2020 (1) TMI 1563 - AT - Income Tax

Ex-parte order of CIT - HELD THAT - Assessee despite having been put to notice about the hearing of the appeal had failed to comply with the same. On a perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we find that he had summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issues which arose from the impugned order and had been assailed by the assessee before him. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the manner in which the appeal of the assessee had been disposed off by the CIT(A). In our considered view once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A) it is obligatory on his part to dispose off the appeal on merits. We are of a strong conviction that it is not open for the CIT(A) to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the same by the assessee. Rather a perusal of Sec.251(1)(a) and (b) as well as the Explanation to Sec. 251(2) reveals that the CIT(A) remains under a statutory obligation to apply his mind to all the issues which arises from the impugned order before him. As per the mandate of law the CIT(A) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 2016 (5) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) through an ex-parte order.
2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of event management expenses.
3. Ad-hoc disallowance of business expenses.
4. Proper disposal of appeal by CIT(A).

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) through an ex-parte order.
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A)-24, Mumbai, arising from the A.O's order under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal through an ex-parte order due to the assessee's failure to comply with the hearing notice. The ITAT found the dismissal unjust as the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits. Referring to Sec.251(1)(a) and (b) and the Explanation to Sec.251(2), the ITAT emphasized that the CIT(A) must consider all issues raised, even if not by the appellant, and cannot dismiss appeals summarily. Citing a Bombay High Court judgment, the ITAT set aside the dismissal, directing the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording the assessee a fair hearing.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of event management expenses.
During scrutiny assessment, the A.O disallowed INR 9,02,748 under Sec. 40(a)(ia) as event management expenses. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, leading to an appeal by the assessee. The ITAT did not delve into the merits of this disallowance due to the primary focus on the improper dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A).

Issue 3: Ad-hoc disallowance of business expenses.
Additionally, an ad-hoc disallowance of INR 5,00,000 was made out of total expenses of INR 84,81,219. The A.O assessed the income at a higher amount based on these disallowances. The CIT(A) also upheld this disallowance, prompting the assessee to appeal. However, the ITAT's decision to set aside the dismissal by the CIT(A) meant that a re-evaluation of this ad-hoc disallowance was not conducted.

Issue 4: Proper disposal of appeal by CIT(A).
The ITAT emphasized the statutory duty of the CIT(A) to consider all issues raised in an appeal and provide a reasoned decision. The ITAT's decision to set aside the ex-parte order highlighted the necessity for fair and thorough adjudication by the CIT(A) rather than summary dismissals. The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper disposal of appeals.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, focusing on the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) and the subsequent directions given by the ITAT for a fair re-adjudication of the matter.