Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, failed to file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceeded to frame a best judgment assessment, determining the total income at Rs. 1,80,37,060/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 258-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of unfamiliarity with the e-filing portal and a change of residence. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal on merits, as required by law, even when dismissing it ex-parte, and relied on the Bombay High Court decision in PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) properly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 147, 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16.08.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. No return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') dated 26/03/2021 requiring the assessee to file Ajikumar Babudhara Nair the return of income. The appellant neither complied with notices issued u/s. 148 nor u/s. 142(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, the AO framed the best judgement assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23/03/2022 at a total income of Rs. 1,80,37,060/-.
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.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 258 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that assessee is unfamiliar to digital platform of Income tax e-filing portal and has been shifted to hometown which was not an area within the city limits, hence, delay has occurred. Since the averments made in the petition are uncontroverted by the Department, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 258 days is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
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 CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled Ajikumar Babudhara Nair 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, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2025.