2022 (9) TMI 1237 - AT - Income Tax

Non-speaking order passed by CIT- A - Dismissal of assessee s appeal summarily for non-prosecution - HELD THAT - In the present case, we note that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed a non-speaking order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily without discussing the merits of the case and the issues for consideration and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. However, we also note that adequate opportunity was not given to the assessee to present his case on merits (as many as 6 opportunities were provided by Ld. CIT(Appeals)). Therefore, in the interests of justice, we are restoring the file to Ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case on merits. However, in the instant case we have also noted that despite several opportunities, the assessee neither caused appearance before Ld. CIT(Appeals) and for which assessee has not been able to produce any convincing reason. Respectfully following the decision of Shri Vipul V. Dhakan 2022 (5) TMI 1455 - ITAT RAJKOT cited by the assessee before us, and in the interests of justice we are setting this matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit cost of ₹ 1,000/- with the Department within 60 days from receipt of this order.

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions and guidelines.
3. Adequacy of opportunities provided during appeal proceedings.
4. Validity of ex parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A).
5. Requirement of passing a speaking order on merits.

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution:
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds of non-prosecution, as the assessee failed to comply despite several adjournments. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee showed no interest in pursuing the appeal, leading to its dismissal. Various notices were issued to the assessee for hearings, but no compliance was observed. Citing legal precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) justified the dismissal for non-prosecution, emphasizing the importance of effectively pursuing an appeal. The appeal was consequently treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Compliance with statutory provisions and guidelines:
The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following guidelines issued by the Hon. Bombay High Court and statutory provisions of section 250(6) of the IT Act, 1961. The appeal highlighted discrepancies in the calculation of interest under section 234B of the Act, urging a recalculation. The appellant also raised concerns regarding the adequacy of opportunities provided during the rectification process and at various stages of assessment and appeal. The appellant sought cancellation of the order based on non-compliance with statutory provisions and guidelines.

Issue 3: Adequacy of opportunities provided during appeal proceedings:
The appellant argued that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without discussing the merits of the case, contrary to judicial precedents requiring a detailed and well-reasoned order. The appellant emphasized the need for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass orders on merits based on available material, rather than summarily dismissing appeals for non-prosecution. The appellant cited legal decisions mandating that appeals should be decided on merits through a written order, stating points of determination and reasons for the decision.

Issue 4: Validity of ex parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A):
The ITAT noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order, dismissing the appeal summarily without discussing the merits or grounds raised by the appellant. Despite providing multiple opportunities for hearings, the appellant failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the lack of reasoning in the order and the absence of a decision on merits, the ITAT set aside the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision, subject to the appellant depositing a specified cost within a given timeframe.

Issue 5: Requirement of passing a speaking order on merits:
In line with legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of passing speaking orders on merits, the ITAT directed the Ld. CIT(A) to reevaluate the appeal after providing the appellant with due opportunities to present their case. Despite acknowledging the lack of a detailed order by the Ld. CIT(A), the ITAT recognized the need for a fair hearing and decided to restore the matter for a fresh decision, ensuring justice and adherence to legal principles.

This detailed analysis covers the dismissal of the appeal, compliance with statutory provisions, adequacy of opportunities during appeal proceedings, validity of the ex parte order, and the requirement of passing a speaking order on merits, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment.

← Previous Next →