MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LIMITED,EDAYAR vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

PDF

ITA 676/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 February 2025AY 2018-19Bench: the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. 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 di3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee company filed its income return for AY 2018-19 declaring a loss, but the AO completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144 due to non-compliance, assessing an income. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was subsequently dismissed ex parte for non-prosecution without a decision on merits.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is legally obligated under Section 250(6) to dispose of appeals on merits, even if heard ex parte, and cannot dismiss them merely for non-prosecution. Citing the Bombay High Court, the ITAT remanded the case to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex parte for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, and what is the scope of the CIT(A)'s duty in such circumstances.

Sections Cited

143(2), 142(1), 144, 144B, 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
279 CTR 614 · HC
132 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM

For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Hearing: 08.01.2025Pronounced: 11.02.2025

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 09.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 declaring loss of Rs. 4,15,43,111/-. The DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi Meat Products of India Ltd. (hereinafter called “the AO”) issued notices to the assessee under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). However, the assessee had not complied with the notices. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment vide order dated 25.04.2021 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. at a total income of Rs. 74,08,881/-.

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

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

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