YOOSUF VALIYA PARAMBATH,KANNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR
Facts
The appellant, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. The AO issued notices under Section 148 and Section 142(1), and upon non-compliance, passed a best judgment assessment under Section 143 read with Sections 144 and 144B, adding Rs. 1,58,86,688/- as unexplained money under Section 69A. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the appellant's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if dismissed ex-parte, citing settled legal position and a Bombay High Court decision. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, and if the matter should be remanded for a fresh decision on merits.
Sections Cited
139(1), 148, 142(1), 143, 144, 144B, 69A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA No. 811/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yoosuf Valiya Parambath .......... Appellant Valiya Parambath House, Palathai Panoor, Kadavathur, Kannur 670676 [PAN: APKPV6497B] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & TPS, Kannur Appellant by: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025
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 19.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
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
2 ITA No. 811/Coch/2024 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.
3 ITA No. 811/Coch/2024 Yoosuf Valiya Parambath 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th April, 2025. 6.
Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 29th April, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
