ALAGARSAMY CHETTIAR,THENI vs. ITO, WARD-1, , THENI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1.1. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting proper and effective opportunity of hearing, in violation of Section 250(6) and natural justice 1.2. The impugned order is cryptic and non-reasoned, passed without examining the facts, documents, or legal submissions placed on record. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the demand raised without appreciating that all deductees' PANs were valid and Aadhaar-linked within the extended due date; hence treating them as "inoperative" and raising demand u/s 200A/206CB is illegal. 2.2 The repeated rectification requests u/s 154, demonstrating PAN- Aadhaar linkage and absence of default, were ignored both by CPC and CIT(A). 2.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that TDS was correctly deducted and deposited, therefore, no default existed and the demand of Rs. 20,70,610/-is unsustainable and liable to be deleted. 3. The CIT(A) mechanically upheld the CPC demand without independent verification of facts, thereby failing to exercise proper appellate jurisdiction 4 Any other ground raised at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is an Individual engaged in the business of wholesale trading garlic. For the Financial Year 2023-24, the appellant filed Quarterly TDS Returns in respect of deduction made by it u/s.194C and 194Q of the Act. The said quarterly returns were processed by CPC u/s.200A/206CB of the Income Tax Act vide intimation dated 23.07.2024 raising a demand of Rs.20,70,610/- by citing the reason that invalid PAN of the deductees or PAN numbers of deductees were not linked with their Aadhar Numbers as provided under Rule 114AAA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Being aggrieved by the above intimation, an appeal before ld.CIT(A) contending that all PAN numbers of deductees were valid and the PAN numbers of the deductees were linked with their Aadhar before the due date for compliance as extended by CBDT up to 30.06.2023. However, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is contended that the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal ex-parte without granting any reasonable opportunity and dealing on the merits of the appeal without entering into merits of the appeal.

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 the above legal position, as the matter requires verification of details filed by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a remand to the file of AO/CPC for denovo processing of the Quarterly Returns.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16 April, 2026.