TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal in ITA No.1490/Hyd/2025 for AY 2013-14, wherein the assessee has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271B of the Act, on the following grounds of appeal: 1. "The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the entire credits of Rs. 1.32.50,000/- are not in the nature of turnover of the assessee, as the assessee is only a facilitator in collection of chit amounts and only a conduit in the process, therefore, erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 66,250/- u/s 271B of the IT Act. 2. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 44AB are not attracted in the case of assessee and therefore, erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 66,250/- u/s 271B of the IT Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the 3 above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary. 4. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addressing the specific grounds of appeal on which the impugned penalty order was assailed before him. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that even though the assessee who had remained oblivion about the fixation of the appeal could not participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, but the latter remained under a statutory obligation to have disposed of the appeal based on a reasoned and speaking order which he had failed to do. 9. Per contra, Shri Mohan Babu, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, "DR") relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that as the assessee had failed to prosecute the appeal before the CIT(A), therefore, the appellate authority had rightly dismissed the appeal. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties and the orders of the authorities below. 11. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee despite having been put to notice on three occasions about the fixation of the appeal, i.e., on 14/05/2025, 22/05/2025 and 04/06/2025 had failed to participate in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CITIA) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO 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 s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 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." 12. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal vide a reasoned and speaking order. Needless to say, the CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t: Rs. 19,42,612/-; and (ii) disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction of interest on housing loan: Rs. 2,50,000/-. 17. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee despite having been put to notice about the fixation of the appeal on three occasions, i.e., on 09/05/2025, 22/05/2025 and 04/06/2025 failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, the latter holding a conviction that the assessee appellant was not interested to prosecute the appeal, dismissed the appeal on the said count itself. 18. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 19. Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, "Ld. AR") for the assessee, assailed the CIT(A) order, inter alia, on the ground that the latter had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in summarily dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and not addressing the specific grounds based on which the impugned order of assessment was assailed before him. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention had taken us through the CIT(A) order. It was submitted by him that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 69A are not attracted as the AO has not established that the assessee is the owner of an amount of 3 Rs. 1,18,66,159/-, therefore, the learned CIT erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer wherein, addition of Rs. 1,18,66,159/-, is made by applying provisions of section 69A of the IT Act. 4. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that in the earlier years income returned was accepted considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that the assessee is only a facilitator in chit business. Therefore, the learned CIT erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein, the entire credits in the Bank account amounting to Rs. 1,18,66,159/-are considered as income u/s 69A of the IT Act. 5. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming an addition of 5 Rs. 2,00,000/- which was claimed as deduction on account of interest paid on housing loan. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the 6 above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary." 26. Succinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransfer the same to the chit fund company, and in lieu thereof was in receipt of meagre commission income of 3-4%, which after accounting for the expenses fell below the specific exemption limit, as a result whereof no return of income was filed by him. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee's son was routing the aforesaid collections of chit fund money by using his bank account held with Canara Bank, Mahabubnagar. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO thereafter had initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act and had held the entire amount of bank deposits in the assessee's bank account as his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 31. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee aggrieved with the assessment order had carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), wherein he had in the Memorandum of Appeal, in "Form-35", specifically opted for not being served with the notices/communications by the CIT(A) office through email. Rather, the assessee had at Column No.17 provided his address for receipt of notices/communications from the CIT(A) office. The Ld. AR submitted that despite the fact that the assessee had opted out from the receipt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 35. Coming to the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in summarily dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without adverting to and adjudicating the specific grounds of appeal based on which the impugned assessment order was assailed before him. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts leading to the dismissal of the present appeal for want of prosecution by the CIT(A) remains the same as was there in his appeal for AY 2014-15 in ITA No.1491/Hyd/2025, wherein on identical set of facts, the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the appeal for the failure on the part of the assessee to participate in the appellate proceedings before him. 36. Per contra, the Ld. Sr-DR admitted that the fact situation relating to the dismissal ....