POWERRICH ENIGINEERING COMPANY,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 477/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay, accepting the reason provided. It held that the CIT(A) is obligated under Section 250(6) to decide appeals on merits, even in ex-parte proceedings. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return for AY 2018-19 disclosing a loss. The AO completed the assessment by disallowing a payment, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, prompting the assessee to appeal to the ITAT with a delay of 209 days, citing the illness of its Head Accountant.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on its merits; Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Ms. Preetha R Shenoy, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 31.07.2025

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.09.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in contract business in Sultanate of Oman. The return of Powerrich Engineering Company income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed disclosing loss of Rs. 46,26,405/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 31/05/2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) by disallowing the payment of Rs. 39,57,531/-.

3.

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

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal with delay of 209 days.

5.

The assessee by filing affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that Head Accountant who was looking-after the tax matters suffered severe illness and was bedridden. Hence, the delay is not willful or deliberate. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, I condone the delay of 209 days and admit the appeal for hearing.

6.

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 ex-parte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this Powerrich Engineering Company 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 a direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →