KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KOLLAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) is required to dispose of appeals on merits, even if disposed ex-parte, as per Section 250(6) of the Act and established legal precedent.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board, is challenging an order that dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution. The AO had taxed the entire income of the appellant, claiming it was excess over application.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the merits of the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra132 citing279 CTR 614 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Bengaluru [CIT(A)] dated 12.03.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Board constituted by the Government of Kerala under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, 1985. The Board applies income for application wholly and exclusively for the purpose for which it was established. It was claimed that the income of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board Board is eligible for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed on 26.09.2012 disclosing Nil income and the same was revised on 26.03.2013. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO (Exemption), Kollam (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 18.03.2015 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 34,86,41,163/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the excess of income over application of income by Rs. 34,86,41,163/- as taxable income of the appellant.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non prosecution without adjudicating the issues in the appeal on merits.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
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 Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board 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, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Rajendran Palanivelu, Pudukkottai vs ITO Ward 1, PudukkottaiChennai10 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal on merits, even if it is an ex-parte appeal. Dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits violates the principles of na...
- Veekaybuilders and Developers, Ernakulam vs ITO, Non Corp Ward-1(1), KochiCochin28 Oct 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if it is exparte, by framing points of determination and providing a detailed discussion. The dismissal for non-prosecution without ...
- Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs Income Tax Officer-Ward(2), AluvaCochin28 Oct 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits even when dismissing it exparte. The CIT(A) failed to frame points of determination and provide a detailed discussion as required by Secti...
- Narendar Aale, Hyderabad vs ITO., Ward-11(5), HyderabadHyderabad10 Oct 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if ex-parte, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
- Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, GuruvayoorCochin19 Aug 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill health and the CA's non-compliance, citing sufficient reasonable cause. It was held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a ...
More judgments on Section 10(23C)(iv)
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Population Services International, DelhiITA 3148/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Population Services International, DelhiITA 3147/DEL/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- S M Educational Society, Siliguri vs I.T.O., Exemption, Ward - 2(2), SiliguriITA 527/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2026AY 2022-2023
- S M Educational Society, Siliguri vs I.T.O., Exemption, Ward - 2(2), SiliguriITA 526/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2026AY 2021-2022
- Nirmal Bharat Foundation, Pune vs Exemption Ward 1(2), PuneITA 3133/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mohit Jain vs. Union Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Gopal Yadav vs. Union BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Infinix Inftoech vs. Utkarsh Small Fianance BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Chandra Shekhar Dayar vs. Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026