Hukum Singh vs ITO, Ward 1(4)

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The assessee has filed appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 23.06.2025 for the AYs 2012-13 & 2015-16.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We proceeded to adjudicate the issue with the assistance of ld. DR of the Revenue.

At the time of hearing, we observed that the ld. CIT (A) in AY 2012-13 decided the issue against the assessee by observing that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities. He proceeded to adjudicate by relying on several decisions on the subject of non-prosecution and, he dismissed the appeal in limine. We observed that that ld. CIT (A) has not decided the issue on merit and sustained the addition relying on the order of the Assessing Officer. Further in AY 2015-16, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal being filed beyond the prescribed time limit and accordingly he held that the same is time barred and consequently not maintainable.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Considered the submissions of the ld. DR of the Revenue and material placed on record. We observed that in AY 2012-13, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal by relying on the order of Assessing Officer ex-parte and in AY 2015-16, he dismissed the appeal being time barred. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also condone the delay in filing the appeal in AY 2015-16 before the ld. CIT(A). We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.