KACHAYI MAKKOOL SHAKKIRUDDEEN,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 4, KANNUR

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income from business under the proprietorship, engaged in the business of manufacturing plywood and block board. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 07.11.017 declaring income of Rs. 15,90,660/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-4, Kannur (hereinafter called "the Kachayi Makkool Shakkiruddeen AO") vide order dated 27.11.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) after making adjustment u/s. 145A of th4e Act of Rs. 2,87,790/- on account of adjustment of value of closing stock to include the amount of tax, duty, cess or fee.

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 appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

I heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. 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.