PARAYANIKKAL VARGEESE ANTONY,KANNUR vs. ITO,WARD 3, KANNUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated under Section 250(6) to decide appeals on merits, even if heard ex parte, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution. Citing a High Court decision, the ITAT remanded the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, failed to file a regular return for AY 2018-19. After receiving a notice under Section 148, the assessee filed a return. The AO completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B, making a substantial addition under Section 40A(3) for cash withdrawals. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, and if such an appeal should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 40A(3),Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 24.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for AY 2018-19 was filed by the appellant. The AO issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 30.03.2022. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed the return of income on 29.04.2022 declaring total Parayanikkal Vargeese Antony income of Rs. 2,25,880/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 24.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 2,58,02,910/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 2,55,77,030/- being the cash withdrawn from the South Indian Bank by drawing inference that the appellant had incurred cash expenditure in excess of the limit prescribed u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
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 Parayanikkal Vargeese Antony CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we 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, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2025.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
