TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, erred in dismissing the appeal without providing further opportunity. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed all the necessary details during the course of assessment proceedings including copies of ledger account as per books of account, copy of bill, other supporting documents and contract agreement with regard to sub-contract expenses amount of Rs.1,52,86,000/- paid to Radha Swami Infracon & Engineers Limited, Jamshedpur e entire addition of Rs. 1,52,86,000/- is to be deleted. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad and Assessing Officer, has erred in considering sub-contract expenses amount of Rs.1,52,86,000/- paid to Radha Swami Infracon & Engineers Limited, Jamshedpur. The sub-contract expenses amount of Rs.1,52,86,000/- is included in service tax amount of Rs.17,58,566/-, which was not claimed as expenditure. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad and Assessing Officer, ought to have considered appellant submissions submitted during the course of assessment procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.O. disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act the claim of the assessee company for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employee share of contribution towards ESI/PF amounting to Rs.1,06,276/-. The A.O. vide his order u/s 147 of the Act dt.26.09.2023 after making the aforesaid additions/disallowances determined the income of the assessee company at Rs. 4,41,31,926/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee company despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities had on five occasions i.e., vide notices dated 12.02.2024, 22.05.2024, 25.06.2024, 27.09.2024 and 03.12.2024 failed to make any compliance, while for on the remaining two occasions i.e., on 10.07.2024 and 21.09.2024 had only sought for some further time so that the necessary information may be collated, which, however were never filed, therefore, the CIT(A) holding a firm conviction that the assessee company was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, dismissed the same on the said count itself. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under : 7. Decision: The appellant filed its return of income on 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, AO held that Rs. 1,06,276/- has to be disallowed. Aggrieved by the above two additions made by the AO, the appellant filed the present appeal. 7.1 The appellant raised 10 grounds of appeal. 7.2 At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that during the appellate proceedings several opportunities were provided by the department through the e-mail address given by the appellant in Form 35. However, the appellant failed to produce any explanation in support of appellant's grounds of appeal. The following table illustrates the number of opportunities afforded to the appellant :- SI. No. Date of Notice Due Date Compliance of Remarks 1. 12.02.2024 19.02.2024 No compliance 2. 22.05.2024 03.06.2024 No compliance 3. 25.06.2024 05.07.2024 No compliance 4. 10.07.2024 Appellant responded vide its letter dated 10.07.2024 stating that ground wise information to be submitted is under compilation and sought adjustment. 4. 21.09.2024 IC Appellant responded through the portal stating that ground wise informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MELWIN D'SOUZA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Leave granted. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs who were the appellant in RSA No.196/2022. The only grievance of the appellants herein is with regard to the dismissal of the said appeal vide order dated 26.09.2023 on merits although the appellants were not represented inasmuch as there was no counsel who appeared for the appellants and the junior counsel for the appellants submitted that the senior counsel engaged in the matter, was not available as his cousin had passed away. Therefore, on account of a bereavement in the family of the arguing counsel there was no representation on behalf of the appellants before the High Court. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court could have dismissed the appeal for nonprosecution in terms of the order XLI Rule 17 CPC and particularly the Explanation thereto instead of dismissing the appeal on merits by stating that no substantial question of law was made out. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) while dismissing the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution had, inter alia, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Benny D' Souza and Others Vs. Melwin D' Souza and Others, Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s) 23809/2023, dated 24.11.2023. It was observed by him that the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that if the assessee does not appear when the appeal was called for hearing, then it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits. 7. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri A.V. Raghuram Advocate, learned Authorized Representative (for short "ld.AR") for the assessee company, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in dismissing the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution i.e., without adverting to and adjudicating the specific issues based on which the impugned order was assailed before him. The ld.AR submitted that the matter, in all fairness, be restored to the file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. Explanation - Nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits." (emphasis supplied by us) 11. Ostensibly, as the aforesaid Rule 17(supra) is applicable to the proceedings before a "Court", therefore, we are of a firm conviction that the same cannot be applied qua the proceedings before the CIT(A) which is a quasi-judicial authority. Rather, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Madras Vs. S. Chennappa Mudaliar 1969 SCC (1) 591, while interpreting Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, had held, that the appellate tribunal is bound to give a proper decision both on the question of fact as well as law, and that can only be done if the appeal is disposed off on merits and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. 12. Apart from that, our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR ....