Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, failed to file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. The AO issued a notice under section 142(1) for non-compliance. The AO then made a best judgement assessment under section 144, treating cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income.
Held
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to follow the SOP by not issuing a physical notice when email communication was not responded to. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without following proper procedure for serving notices, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
139(1), 142(1), 143(2), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hussain Theparambil Faizal .......... Appellant Theparambil, Chalingadu, Kaipamangalam Thrissur 680681 [PAN: ACVPF5761G] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad [CIT(A)] dated 23.12.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual. No return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2017-18. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit in specified bank notes (SBN) during demonetisation period, the ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling upon the appellant to Hussain Theparambil Faizal file return of income. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s. 142(1) nor the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO proceeded with making best judgement assessment by making addition of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
At the outset, I find that the CIT(A) had issued the notice thorough email. The SOP issued by the Department mandates that when the appellant had not complied with the notices sent through email, notice should be issued through alternate method of service of notice, i.e., through physical mode, which the CIT(A) had failed to do. Therefore, in the interest of justice the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose the appeal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2025.