CHENIYARAKKAL NHERLOTE MUHAMMED ALI,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD-1 & TPS, KANNUR

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and had not filed return of income for AY 2019-20. As per the Specific Information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by CBDT, the appellant had deposited Rs. 69,54,146/- in Federal Bank and purchased motor vehicle for value exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/-. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 27.12.2023. Against the notice u/s. Cheniyarakkal Nherlote Muhammed Ali 148, the assessee filed return of income on 27.12.2023 declaring income of Rs. 6,12,330/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s. 147 of the Act. While doing so, the AO made addition u/s. 69A of the Act of Rs. 36,76,500/-.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

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 merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.