Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an e-return of income, which was assessed at a significantly higher income by the Assessing Officer, including additions for unexplained cash deposits and capital gains. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal exparte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 557-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's senior citizen status and unfamiliarity with the e-filing portal. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits even if it's dismissed exparte, and that the dismissal for non-prosecution without considering merits was incorrect.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal exparte for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
144, 144B, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.10.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed her e-return of income on 09/08/2021 declaring income of Rs. 1,84,350/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was Lissy Varghese completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 28/12/2022 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') at a total income of Rs. 72,81,560/-. While doing so, the AO made the addition of Rs. 23,42,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts and Rs. 47,55,208/- under the head ‘capital gains’.
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 this Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 557 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that assessee is senior citizen of 73 years old and is unfamiliar with digital platform of Income tax e-filing portal therefore, delay occurred in filing the appeal. Since the averments made in the petition are not uncontroverted by the Department, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 557 days is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing.
We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the Lissy Varghese 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 we are 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 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 11th August, 2025 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.