LATHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. For that the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. Legal/Ex-parte Grounds 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing off the appeal ex-parte. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant could have derived no benefit by not responding to the notices issued on the appellant. 5. For that the appellant had reasonable cause for not responding to the notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Addition of Rs.34,55,700/- u/s.69A 6. For that the addition of Rs. 34,55,700/- u/s.69A is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. For that the provisions of section 69A are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. For that the entire cash deposits cannot be treated as the income of the appellant. 9. For that the appellant has source for the cash deposited in her bank account. 10. For that the addition was made merely on conjectures, surmises and suspicions. Provisions of Section 115BBE not invocable 11. For that the provisions of Section 115BBE are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution without entering into the merits of the additions.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non- prosecution without entering into the merits of the addition. The CIT(A) without dealing with the contentions of the appellant merely dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal ex-parte, he is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “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.

Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All the contentions raised by the appellant are left open for consideration before the ld.CIT(Appeals).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th June, 2026.