Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return of income, which was assessed at a higher total income after the AO made an addition for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without disposing of it on merits, which is contrary to legal position. The Tribunal also condoned a 94-day delay in filing the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits? Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned?
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 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 23.01.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual and e-filed his return of income on 16/10/2016 declaring income of Rs. 17,33,590/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment Varghese Sebastian was completed by the ITO, Ward-3, Aluva (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 24/12/2018 at a total income of 1,96,10,410/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs 1,78,76,816/- being the cash deposits made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of the sale proceeds of the firm.
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 94 days in filing this appeal. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that assessee was not aware of the order passed by the NFAC passed u/s. 250 of the Act and also due to technical difficulty in obtaining digital copy, he could not file the appeal in time. Since the averments made in the petition, not controverted by the Department, we are of the considered opinion, it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Varghese Sebastian 6. 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 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 learned 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 08th August, 2025 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.