KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD2(4) & TPS , KOCHI

Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing for AY 2018-19 are stated herein.

to 707/Coch/2025 Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an unregistered society. The return of income for AY 2018-19 was filed on 26.07.2018 disclosing an income of Rs. 3,61,250/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC vide intimation dated 31.05.2019 levying maximum martial rate of tax. On receipt of the said intimation, petition u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed. The said petition was rejected vide order dated 03.07.2024.

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 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

Since identical issues and facts are involved in assessee’s appeals to 707/Coch/2025, our findings in shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.