JAYAKUMARAN PILLAI GOVINDAPILLAI,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from salary. The return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 was not filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the ‘Act’). However, on the basis Jayakumaran Pillai Govindapillai of information, the AO noted that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,39,73,000/- and invested time deposit of Rs. 13,79,000/- in the State Bank of Travancore. The AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 11/04/2022, however, assessee had not complied with the notice issued. Under these circumstances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment vide order dated 21/02/2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144r.w.s. 144B of the Act after making addition of Rs.13,97,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the 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 a settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal ex-parte, 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 Jayakumaran Pillai Govindapillai the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal denovo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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