Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative bank, failed to file its return for AY 2011-12. The AO issued a Section 148 notice, and upon non-compliance, completed an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147, disallowing deduction under Section 80P. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) was duty-bound to dispose of the appeal on merits, even when proceeding ex-parte, rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. Citing precedent, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits.
Sections Cited
139(1), 148, 142(1), 144, 147, 80P
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
Appellant by: Shri Amaljith, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 29.01.2025 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 26.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, the assessee is a co-operative bank registered under the Kerala Co-Operative The Pazhambalacode Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Societies Act, 1969. The assessee has not filed the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2011-12. Therefore the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Palakkad (hereafter “the AO”) issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 11.11.2014. The assessee neither complied with the notice u/s. 148 of the Act nor produced any details called for vide the notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 16.08.2016. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment vide order dated 19.12.2016 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the act at a total income of Rs. 63,24,230/- by disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by holding that the appellant society is a co-operative bank.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharji and Anr 118 ITR 461 (SC) and few other judgements.
Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. 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.