GOVINDARAJAN BASKAR,KANCHIPURAM vs. ACIT, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

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.739/CHNY/2026 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.739/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual engaged in the business of sale of lands. The appellant had not filed any Return of Income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.1,54,000/- in the account maintained with HDFC Bank and also made cash withdrawal of Rs.2,13,97,700/-, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 22.03.2024 calling upon the appellant to file Return of Income for the A.Y.2017-18 after duly complying the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act nor the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act and notices u/s.133(6) of the Act. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer proceeded with framing of best judgment assessment order vide order dated 25.02.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.4,28,27,523/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax a sum of Rs.4,28,27,523/- being amount credited in the bank account maintained with HDFC Bank as unexplained money of the appellant and taxed the amount under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.

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 addition.

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).

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.

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).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.740/CHNY/2026

To sum up, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st May, 2026.