Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2019-20. Upon receiving information about a substantial deposit and a motor vehicle purchase, a notice under section 148 was issued. The assessee subsequently filed a return, and the Assessing Officer made an addition under section 69A.
Held
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. However, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal on merits, even if ex-parte, citing a High Court decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without disposing of it on merits? Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
148, 147, 69A, 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
Assessment Year: 2019-20 Cheniyarakkal Nherlote Muhammed Ali .......... Appellant Manas Mahal, Kandankunnu P.O. Neerveli, Nirmalagiri, Kannur 670701 [PAN: BHWPM0252N] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Kannur.......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 20.07.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.
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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2025.