Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment for AY 2017-18 was completed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making several disallowances due to the assessee's failure to respond to a show cause notice. The assessee's appeal against this order was subsequently dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine for non-prosecution.
Held
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound under Section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of an appeal on merits, even ex-parte, after framing points of determination. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the ITAT remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without deciding on its merits, contrary to the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Assessment Year: 2017-18 CGR Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Building NO. 62/1906, A, Sadanam Road Extn., M.G. Road S.O., Kochi 682016 [PAN: AACCC4855G] vs. DCIT, Corporte Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of refining precious metals and minting of coins and bars. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 30.10.2017 disclosing income of Rs. 46,28,269/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated CGR Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. 20.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total income of Rs. 78,85,320/-. While doing so, the AO made the following disallowances for the failure of the appellant to respond to the show cause notice issued to the appellant: -
i Addition on account of service tax Rs. 17,438/- payable ii Belated payment of employee’s Rs. 5,97,092/- contribution towards PF & ESI iii Disallowance of royalty for non deduction Rs. 19,46,388/- of TDS iv Disallowance of rent for non deduction of Rs. 7,810/- TDS v Disallowance of penalty Rs. 3,58,318/- vi. Disallowance of cash deposits Rs. 1,99,800/-
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
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 CGR Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. 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 filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th November, 2025.