2025 (5) TMI 1565 - AT - Income Tax

CIT(A) dismissing appeal without providing further opportunity - 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 - HELD THAT - We find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal simply for want of prosecution without adverting to the specific issues based on which the impugned order was assailed before him. Although it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee company despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority but the same would in no way justify summary dismissal of its appeal for want of prosecution without adverting to and adjudicating the specific grounds based on which the impugned order was assailed by the assessee/appellant before him. In so for the judgment of Benny D Souza and Others Vs. Melwin D Souza and Others 2023 (11) TMI 1309 - SC ORDER is concerned we are of the view that as the same is distinguishable on the facts therefore the same would not carry the case of the Revenue any further. Hon ble Apex Court by referring to Explanation to Rule 17 (supra) had observed that the same categorically provides that if the appellant does not appear before the Court when the appeal is called for hearing then it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Madras Vs. S. Chennappa Mudaliar 1969 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT 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. Thus set aside the matter to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal vide a speaking order. CIT(A) shall in the course of set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company.

The core legal questions considered in this appeal include:

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the substantive grounds raised against the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Whether the disallowance of subcontract expenses amounting to Rs. 1,52,86,000/- paid to M/s Radha Swami Infracon & Engineers Limited (RSIEL) was legally sustainable, given the assessee's claim of genuine business expenditure supported by contracts, ledger accounts, bills, and TDS compliance.

3. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 1,06,276/- towards employee Provident Fund contributions under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act was justified, considering the delayed deposit of employee contributions.

4. The applicability and interpretation of procedural provisions relating to dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on Order XLI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), and whether such procedural rules apply to quasi-judicial authorities like the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Prosecution by CIT(A)

Legal Framework and Precedents: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution after the assessee failed to comply with multiple notices requesting submission of grounds of appeal and supporting documents. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Benny D'Souza & Ors. v. Melwin D'Souza & Ors., which interpreted Order XLI Rule 17 CPC and its Explanation, holding that if an appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing, the appeal can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The present Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution given the assessee's repeated failures to comply, the Supreme Court's ruling is factually distinguishable. The Supreme Court's decision was concerned with dismissal by a civil court, where Order XLI Rule 17 CPC applies strictly to courts. The CIT(A) is a quasi-judicial authority under the Income Tax Act, and its powers and obligations differ from those of a civil court. The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court ruling in CIT v. S. Chennappa Mudaliar and the Bombay High Court ruling in CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which hold that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them merely for non-prosecution.

Application of Law to Facts: Although the assessee failed to submit the required information despite multiple opportunities, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the substantive grounds raised by the assessee rather than dismissing the appeal summarily. The principles of natural justice require that an appeal be decided on merits unless the appellant explicitly withdraws or abandons the appeal.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued in favor of dismissal due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee contended that the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits. The Tribunal favored the latter view, emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of the CIT(A) and the statutory mandate to decide appeals on merits.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

2. Disallowance of Subcontract Expenses of Rs. 1,52,86,000/-

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act allows for deduction of business expenses that are "wholly and exclusively" for business purposes. The Assessing Officer disallowed the subcontract expenses on the ground that the payments to RSIEL were accommodation entries and bogus expenses, as the assessee failed to produce details of the manpower supplied (such as names, identity, and addresses) despite repeated requests and notices under section 133(6).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO relied on information from the Investigation Wing indicating that RSIEL provided accommodation entries. The AO issued notices to RSIEL which went unserved, further supporting the conclusion that the subcontract expenses were not genuine. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order implicitly by dismissing the appeal without adjudication.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted work orders, ledger accounts, bills, contract agreements, and proof of payment through banking channels with TDS deductions. However, it failed to provide details of manpower supplied, which was critical to establish the genuineness of the subcontract expenses.

Application of Law to Facts: The absence of corroborative details about the manpower supplied undermined the assessee's claim. The AO's reliance on investigation inputs and the non-cooperation of RSIEL supported the disallowance under section 37(1).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that all necessary details had been filed and that the expenses were genuine. The AO and CIT(A) rejected this due to non-furnishing of manpower details and non-response from RSIEL. The Tribunal did not decide on this issue on merits due to dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution but noted the factual background.

Conclusion: The disallowance of subcontract expenses was sustained by the AO and CIT(A), but the Tribunal remanded the matter for adjudication on merits.

3. Disallowance of Provident Fund Contribution of Rs. 1,06,276/-

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act disallows deduction for employer's contribution to Provident Fund if the employee's contribution is not deposited within the due date. The Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT was followed by the AO to disallow the amount due to delayed deposit of employee contributions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO found from the tax audit report that the employee's share of PF contribution was not deposited timely. Following binding precedent, the AO disallowed the corresponding deduction. The CIT(A) upheld this order.

Application of Law to Facts: The assessee did not dispute the delay in deposit but sought deletion of the addition. The AO's disallowance was in line with statutory provisions and judicial precedent.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's contention that the addition should be deleted was not supported by any legal or factual basis, and the AO's view was accepted.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 1,06,276/- was legally justified and upheld.

4. Applicability of Order XLI Rule 17 CPC and Dismissal on Merits vs. Non-Prosecution

Legal Framework and Precedents: Order XLI Rule 17 CPC governs dismissal of appeals for non-appearance in civil courts. The Explanation to Rule 17 clarifies that dismissal can only be for non-prosecution and not on merits. The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Benny D'Souza (2023) emphasized this principle.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court ruling on the ground that the CPC provisions apply to courts, not quasi-judicial authorities like the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is statutorily required to dispose of appeals on merits, including making findings on facts and law, as per sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act. The Bombay High Court in CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) held that CIT(A) cannot dismiss appeals merely for non-prosecution.

Application of Law to Facts: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal held this was contrary to the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court ruling to justify dismissal. The assessee argued for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal favored the latter, emphasizing the difference in procedural context and statutory obligations.

Conclusion: The CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudication on merits was set aside, and the matter remanded for disposal on merits.

Significant Holdings

"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."

"The law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act."

"Order XLI Rule 17 CPC is applicable to courts and not to quasi-judicial authorities like the CIT(A). Therefore, the Explanation to Rule 17 CPC which prohibits dismissal on merits in case of non-appearance does not apply to CIT(A) proceedings."

"In view of the non-compliance and also in view of the fact that the statement of fact and the grounds of appeal are not substantiated by any proper statement or evidence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed." (As held by CIT(A), but set aside by Tribunal for non-adjudication on merits.)

"The principle embodied in the maxim 'Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt' applies; the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights."

Final Determinations

The appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to repeated failures to comply with notices. However, the Tribunal held that such dismissal without adjudication on merits was legally impermissible under the statutory scheme governing CIT(A) appeals. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The substantive issues raised by the assessee regarding the disallowance of subcontract expenses and Provident Fund contributions remain to be adjudicated by the CIT(A) in the remand proceedings. The Tribunal did not express any final opinion on the merits of these additions, leaving the matter open for consideration by the CIT(A).

← Previous Next →