VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD(2), ALUVA

PDF

ITA 608/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for AY 2016-17. Upon information of purchased property and received commission, the AO issued a notice u/s. 148. The assessee filed a return, and the AO made several disallowances, including deductions u/s. 24(b) and 80C, business promotion expenses, and vehicle expenses. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte for non-prosecution.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits even when dismissing it exparte. The CIT(A) failed to frame points of determination and provide a detailed discussion as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter must be remanded.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal exparte for non-prosecution without disposing of the appeal on merits. Whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Sections Cited

148, 144B, 24(b), 80C, 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
279 CTR 614 · HC
132 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P.J., Advocate

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Hearing: 27.10.2025Pronounced: 28.10.2025

O R D E R These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] both dated 26.06.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 & 2017-18.

Brief facts of the case for AY 2016-17 are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee did not file return of income for AY 2016-17. As per the information available with the Department, the appellant had purchased immovable property of Rs. 15,60,000/- and received commission of Rs. 89,68,787/- during AY 2016-17. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 30.03.2021. In response to the notice u/s. 148, & 608/Coch/2025 Viswanathan Krishna Kumar the appellant filed return of income on 18.11.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 35,18,460/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s. 144B of the Act. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of deduction u/s. 24(b) of Rs. 2,00,000/-, disallowance of deduction u/s. 80C of Rs. 69,659/-, disallowance of business promotion expenses of Rs. 2,56,168/- and disallowance of 33% of vehicle expenses and depreciation on vehicle of Rs. 6,95,454.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

I heard the rival contentions 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 & 608/Coch/2025 Viswanathan Krishna Kumar 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.