Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant filed an Income Tax Return for AY 2017-18, which was assessed by the AO under Section 143(3) with a significant addition for unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's subsequent appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. The appellant then filed an appeal before the ITAT, explaining a delay of 916 days due to non-receipt of notices, a cancer diagnosis and treatment, and late awareness of the CIT(A) order (upon receiving a notice under Section 221(1)).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering its merits, as Section 250(6) of the Act mandates framing points of determination and a detailed discussion. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of 916 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. 2. Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without deciding it on merits, considering the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
143(3), 221(1), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.07.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 31.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,25,100/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(3), Kozhikode (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 38,53,710/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the issues.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset it is found that the appeal was filed with a delay of 916 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the appellant had not received the hearing notices issued by the CIT(A). Consequently the appellant could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). Ultimately the appellant was diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment at Amrutha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Ernakulam. Consequently there was a delay in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the appellant came to know about the order passed by the CIT(A), only when the jurisdictional AO issued notice u/s. 221(1) of the Act on 11.03.2024. Thus, it was explained that the delay had occurred on account of factors which were beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, pleaded for condonation of delay.
On the other hand the learned Sr. DR had no serious objection to condone the delay.
On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation 7. petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable
I heard the rival contentions of both 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2025.