SRINIVAS ARRA,KARIMNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,80,730/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 27.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) assessing the total income at Rs.29,84,284/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period of Rs.25,03,554/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits with supporting evidences.

Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine.

Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 169 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the assessee was not aware of the impugned order of the CIT(A) and approached counsel on 14.07.2025 and logging into the income tax portal, the assessee came know about the impugned order and immediately filed appeal before the Tribunal, hence the delay occurred. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, having regard to the averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay is a fit case to condone the delay of 169 days. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned CIT(A) 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 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. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position I am 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.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.