9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1562 - AT - Income TaxValidity of CIT(A) order dismissing the assessee s appeal ex parte without adjudicating the appeal on merits - Procedure in appeal u/s 250 - HELD THAT - Reasons which weighed in the minds of the adjudicating authority while adjudicating appeal on merits of the issues are cardinal as the higher appellate authority can then adjudicate appeal on the issues arising in appeal before them based on decision and reasoning of ld. CIT(A) in deciding the issues. If the ld. CIT(A) simply dismiss the appeal merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) in limine without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6) and also higher appellate authorities will be deprived to see what weighed in the mind of the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating appeal as it will be an order passed without reasoning on the issues on merits. The appellate order of the CIT(A) is clearly in violation of section 250(6) of the Act and liable to be set aside. Merely stating that the assessment order passed by AO is upheld and that the assessee has not submitted details/documents is not sufficient. CIT(A) is not toothless as his powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO which even includes power of enhancement. It is equally true that the assessee also did not complied with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents to support his contentions. Thus the assessee is equally responsible for its woes. Thus appellate order of CIT(A) is set aside and the matter can go back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee on merit in accordance with law after giving opportunities to both the parties. Appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Ex Parte Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A) Without Deciding on Merits Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act mandates that the appellate authority (CIT(A)) must pass a reasoned and speaking order specifying the points of determination, decisions thereon, and the reasons for such decisions. The appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) are an extension of the assessment proceedings and the CIT(A) has powers co-terminus with the Assessing Officer (AO), including the power to enhance the assessment. It is well established that an appellate order must be reasoned to enable higher appellate authorities to understand the basis of the decision and to exercise their appellate jurisdiction effectively. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte solely on the ground that the assessee did not comply with notices and did not appear for hearings. The CIT(A) did not address the substantive issues raised in the appeal, nor did it specify any points of determination or reasons for dismissing the appeal. This approach was found to be contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 250(6) which requires a reasoned order on merits. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee had filed an affidavit explaining his lack of knowledge of income tax procedures and inability to respond to electronic communications. The assessee also submitted additional evidence before the Tribunal regarding the transactions in derivatives (F&O) and the claimed deductions under Section 57. Despite multiple notices issued by the CIT(A), the assessee did not respond during the first appellate proceedings, leading to the ex parte dismissal. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized that while the assessee's non-compliance with notices is a relevant factor, it does not justify an outright dismissal without adjudicating the substantive issues. The CIT(A)'s role includes examining the merits of the appeal, and the order must reflect the reasoning behind the decision. The absence of such reasoning renders the order legally unsustainable. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the dismissal was justified due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the Senior Departmental Representative conceded that the matter could be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal balanced the procedural lapse of the assessee with the statutory obligation on the CIT(A) to decide appeals on merits with reasons. Conclusions: The ex parte dismissal without reasons violated Section 250(6) and was liable to be set aside. The matter required restoration for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to comply with procedural requirements. Issue 2: Compliance with Section 250(6) and Necessity of Reasoned Appellate Orders Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 250(6) explicitly requires that the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) must specify the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. This is essential for transparency, accountability, and to enable effective appellate review by higher authorities (ITAT, High Court, Supreme Court). Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order lacked any reasoning on the merits. It merely upheld the AO's assessment and dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without stating the points of determination or reasons. Such an order deprives the assessee of a fair hearing and deprives higher appellate authorities of the basis to adjudicate further appeals. Key Evidence and Findings: The absence of any remand report or inquiry by the CIT(A) into the merits was noted. The CIT(A) did not exercise the powers co-terminus with the AO, including the power to enhance or modify the assessment. Application of Law to Facts: The failure to comply with Section 250(6) renders the appellate order non-speaking and legally infirm. The appellate order must be reasoned and address the issues raised, even if the appeal is dismissed for procedural non-compliance. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapses by the assessee but underscored that the CIT(A) cannot abdicate the duty to decide on merits with reasons. The procedural default by the assessee does not absolve the CIT(A) from statutory obligations. Conclusions: The appellate order's non-compliance with Section 250(6) was a fundamental flaw, necessitating setting aside of the order and remand for fresh adjudication. Issue 3: Restoration of Matter to CIT(A) for De Novo Adjudication Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of natural justice and fair procedure requires that appeals be decided on merits after giving parties an opportunity to be heard. When an appellate order is set aside for procedural infirmities, restoration for fresh adjudication is the appropriate remedy. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found it just and equitable to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and participate in proceedings. The CIT(A) was empowered to pass a reasoned order on merits in compliance with Section 250(6). Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's affidavit and additional evidence on the derivative transactions demonstrated the need for factual verification and adjudication on merits. The Revenue's consent to remand further supported restoration. Application of Law to Facts: Restoration ensures that the appeal is adjudicated fairly, balancing the assessee's procedural lapses with the statutory duty of the appellate authority to decide on merits. It also preserves the appellate hierarchy's ability to review reasoned orders. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the assessee's limited knowledge and procedural difficulties as mitigating factors. The Revenue's agreement to remand indicated no prejudice in restoration. Conclusions: The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after due opportunity to the parties. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that:
Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
