YOOSUF VALIYA PARAMBATH,KANNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, had not filed return of income for AY 2017-18 u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 24.03.2021. The assessee did not Yoosuf Valiya Parambath comply with the above notice. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act and show cause notices were issued to the appellant, but the appellant did respond to the same. Therefore the AO was compelled to pass best judgement assessment u/s. 143 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act on 19.03.2022 at a total income of Rs. 1,58,86,668/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of unexplained money of Rs. 1,58,86,688/- u/s. 69A of the Act.

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

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