KANNANKULAM POULOSE JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. No regular return of income for the AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee. Based on the information that the assessee made cash Kannankulam Poulose Johny deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) during demonetization period of Rs.5,00,000/- with Federal Bank, Pattikad Branch, the ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur (for short, 'AO') issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 26/02/2018. The assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) nor letter issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. In these circumstnnances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment and made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by observing that assessee made cash deposits in SBNs during demonitization period.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal with a delay of 359 days.

At the outset, I find that the present is filed with a delay 359 days. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that assessee was not aware about the order passed by the NFAC u/s. 250 on 26/03/2024. The assessee came to know the passing of the order only on receiving show-cause notice for levy of penalty and immediately appeal was filed on 19/05/2025 with delay Kannankulam Poulose Johny of 359 days. On careful perusal of the averments made in the affidavit, it is evident that the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the NFAC u/s. 250 till receipt of the penalty notice. Since only ignorance of the order, I am of the considered opinion that for the purpose of limitation period for filing the appeal, the date on which assessee was came to know the order passed by the NFAC should be reckoned. Accordingly, if it is treated that when the date of knowledge, the order is received by the assessee, passed by the order of the NFAC, there is no delay in filing of the present appeal. Accordingly, there is no delay.

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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes