MOHANAMBAL ANANTHAN,NILGIRIS vs. ITO, WARD-1,, OOTY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 937/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2026AY 2013-148 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about the sale of immovable property. The assessee did not comply with the notices, leading to a best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. Whether the CIT(A) is bound to dispose of appeals on merits even in ex-parte situations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 139(1),Section 250,Section 251,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE ABY T VARKEY & HON’BLE INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], both dated 18.12.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Since identical facts and issues are involved in both these appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts relevant in the ITA No.936/CHNY/2026 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 are stated herein:

3.

The Assessee in ITA No.936/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Impugned Order is unjust, unreasonable and bad in law.

2) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the circumstances of the instant case, the legal ground raised and the submissions filed in support thereof.

3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the decisions relied by the Appellant, which squarely cover the legal issue raised, being non-existence of reason recorded.

4) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer by citing subsequent non-response by the Appellant, without considering the fact that the action of reopening itself is void ab initio, when there was no such transaction as alleged.

5) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in reading reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, being "Undisclosed Capital Gains on the sale of immovable property worth of Rs.1,51,00,000/- as "transaction in immovable property" without considering that the reason recorded itself mentions 'Sale' and "Capital Gains', showing specific nature of the satisfaction.

6) Without prejudice, the action of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the settled law that the reasons recorded are to be read and tested as it was recorded originally and cannot be supplemented/ supplanted later.

And for other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that this appeal be admitted, considered and justice be rendered.”

4.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular return of income was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. However, based on the information that the appellant sold immovable property for consideration of Rs.1,51,00,000/- during the previous year relevant assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 10.10.2019 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148, nor to the notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, e-Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing best judgment assessment vide order dated 12.03.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,51,00,000/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Short Term Capital Gains on sale of immovable property of Rs.1,51,00,000/-.

5.

Being aggrieve by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution without entering into the merits of the addition.

6.

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

7.

On the other hand, the ld.Sr.Departmental Representative opposed the above submissions and submits that the order passed by ld.CIT(A) is justified as the appellant had not caused appearance before the ld.CIT(A).

8.

We 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 ld.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 ld.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 ld.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) [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.

Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn.

Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer 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 Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 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.” Unquote.

9.

Therefore, in the light of above legal position, we are of the considered opinion and deem it proper to remit the matter requires to be remanded to the file of Learned CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo disposal of the issue on merits by passing a speaking order after allowing reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law. All the contentions raised by the appellant are left open for consideration before the ld.CIT(Appeals).

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeal is 11. identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.936/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No.937/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2013-14 also. Accordingly, grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

12.

To sum up, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th May, 2026. (ABY T VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; "दनांक / Dated : 26th May, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem.

4.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “सी” ब"च, चे"नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File.

5.

GANGADHA RA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.06.03 SALEELA 18:32:27 +05'30'

8

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →