YASMEEN SHAIKH ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

ITA 1264/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh against the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, as the appellant allegedly did not comply with the notices issued during the hearing. However, the appellant contested that the notices were not served to the correct email address provided in the appeal form. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not served the notices to the email address mentioned in Form-35 and emphasized that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits, regardless of the appellant's non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716669 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; GANESH R GHALE; STANDING
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNAIN BHATIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 69

Judgement Text

"ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1264/Bang/2025 AssessmentYear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru-560103. PAN NO : AOVPS3088K Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh against the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) (NFAC) passed U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for Asst Year 2015-16 on 18/03/2025 emanating from Assessment Order dated 25/01/2023 passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The orders of the authorities below, insofar as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC erred in disposing off the appeal holding that the appellant has not complied Printed from counselvise.com ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 with the notices issued in course of hearing and accordingly dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, which is opposed to law as the appeal ought to have been disposed off on merits under the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have considered submissions made by the appellant as part of the statement of facts and documentary evidence filed in form of Bank statement and cash book forming part of the appeal memorandum filed while disposing off the appeal under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not deciding the ground raised by the appellant challenging the addition of Rs. 10,60,100/- made as unexplained deposit U/s. 69 of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case. 4. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.” 3. Submissions of the Ld. AR: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate appeared virtually. She invited our attention to the Paper Book filed by the assessee. She submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had issued notices to the email address on the Income Tax portal but, in Form-35, the assessee had given different email address. No notice was served by the Ld. CIT(A) on the email address which is mentioned in Form-35 filed by the assessee at the time of filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR therefore, pleaded that one more opportunity may kindly be provided. Printed from counselvise.com ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 4. Submission of Ld. DR: The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre. 5. Findings and Analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On a perusal of the order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Asst. Year 2015-16, dated 18/03/2025, it is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance without discussing the merits of the case. 6. It is observed that the assessee had provided the following email address viz., [e-mail] in Form-35, which is the Form for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not served the notices on the above referred email address mentioned by the assessee. Therefore, there was valid reason for non-compliance. 7. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– “8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to Printed from counselvise.com ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.\" 8. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (supra), it is held that it is mandatory for the Ld. CIT(A) to discuss and adjudicate the Grounds raised by the assessee. However, in this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the Grounds raised by the assessee and also notices were not served properly on the assessee. 9. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside to Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is Printed from counselvise.com ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 allowed. Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. We do not intend to adjudicate the Grounds No. 1, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee which are on the merits of the addition as we have set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, Grounds No. 1, 3 and 4 are dismissed as unadjudicated. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th August, 2025 Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member Sd/- (Dr. Dipak P. Ripote) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated: 18th August, 2025. OKK/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "