PUTHUR KULANGARA JACOB PAULY,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR
Facts
The assessee did not file a regular return for AY 2016-17 but had sold immovable property. The AO issued a notice under Section 148, completed the assessment, and made an addition for short-term capital gain. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. It emphasized that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of appeals on merits, even ex-parte. Consequently, the matter was remanded 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 for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, or is required to dispose of the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
139(1), 148, 147, 144B, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 754/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly .......... Appellant Puthur Kulangara House, Alagappanagar P.O. Mukundapuram, Thrissur 680301 [PAN: ARAPP8842J] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Lokanathan, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 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)] dated 04.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2016-17. As per the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulate by the CBDT and evidence in possession, the appellant had sold immovable property in AY 2015- 16 for a consideration of Rs. 1,14,80,000/-. Accordingly, the
2 ITA No. 754/Coch/2025 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department (hereinafter called "the AO") issues a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 06.03.2023. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income on 05.04.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 12,500/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 28.02.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 45,73,680/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 45,61,180/- on account of short term capital gain.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee 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 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
3 ITA No. 754/Coch/2025 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly 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 is allowed for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2025.
Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st November, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
