No. Section 250(6) obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal in writing, stating the points for determination, the decision on each and the reasons. Section 251(1)(a) gives him the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul - none of which is a power to dismiss for non-prosecution. An ex parte order is permissible; an unreasoned dismissal is not.
The statutory scheme leaves no room for a disposal that decides nothing. Section 250(6) requires the order to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) confine the outcomes to confirming, reducing, enhancing or annulling the assessment or penalty, and the Explanation to section 251(2) requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings, whether or not it was raised by the appellant. The Bombay High Court has held on that basis that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, and the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion for the Tribunal when it struck down the old rule permitting dismissal for default, holding that the statute requires a decision on the merits on questions of fact and law and not a disposal on the ground that a party failed to appear. In practice the CIT(A) may still proceed ex parte after giving notice, but the resulting order must engage with the grounds, the assessment order and whatever material is on record. Where the order does no more than recite the notices issued and the absence of a reply, the remedy is an appeal to the ITAT on the specific ground that the order violates section 250(6) and section 251(1)(a), asking for restoration with a direction to decide on merits. Two cautions: an irregular dismissal is not a nullity, so it must be challenged within time; and restoration is discretionary, so a clean record of adjournment requests and portal uploads materially improves the chance of it.
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
The assessing officer accepted my method of accounting. Can the first appellate authority reject it for the first time in my own appeal and enhance the assessment?
The first appellate authority has enhanced my assessment using items the Assessing Officer never looked at. Can it do that, or has it gone beyond its jurisdiction?
Can the CIT(A) use the enhancement power to tax a source of income the Assessing Officer never examined?
Can an appellate authority under the Income-tax Act throw out an appeal because the appellant did not turn up?
Can the first appellate authority tax a source of income the officer never looked at?
Can you raise a ground before the CIT(A) that you never raised before the officer?
The assessing officer ignored my partition claim and assessed the family anyway. If the Tribunal finds that illegal, can it simply cancel the assessment and stop there?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.
