SURESHKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं माननीय श्री इंटूरी रामा राव, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2963/Chny/2025
Assessment Years: 2019-20

Suresh Kumar,
No.25/74C, 9th Street,
Thiruvotriyur,
Chennai-600 019. [PAN: BGCPS5657N]

Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corp Ward-6(1),
Chennai.

(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by :
Mr.K.Meenakshisundaram, ITP
प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by :
Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
16.12.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
18.12.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), [‘CIT(A)’ in short], NFAC, Delhi, dated 12.09.2025 for AY-2019-20. 2.0 The appellant is an individual deriving income from business of transport, however no return of income under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the appellant for the assessment year 2019-20. However, based on the information available that the appellant sold immovable property for consideration of Rs.36,58,810/-, the AO Page - 2 - of 3

formed an opinion that the income escaped assessment from tax.
Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 13.03.2023 after complying with the procedure laid down under provisions of 148A of the Act. The appellant neither complied with notice issued u/s 148 nor notices u/s 142(1) of the income tax act 1961. In the circumstances, the assessing authority passed best judgment assessment vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the income tax act 1961 at a total of Rs.2,55,68,780/- after making several additions.
3.0 Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Hence, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
4.0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on records. We find that the 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 exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on Page - 3 - of 3

merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Order pronounced on 18th , December-2025 at Chennai. (जॉजज जॉजज के)
(GEORGE GEORGE K)
उपाध्यक्ष / vice president (इंटूरी रामा राव)
(INTURI RAMA RAO)
लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member
चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 18th , December-2025. KB/-
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to:
1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent
3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem.