Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual dealing in oil, filed a return for AY 2016-17. The AO completed assessment under Section 143(3) and made an addition of Rs. 69,97,400/- under Section 50C due to a differential amount between apparent consideration and stamp duty value. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for non-prosecution without addressing the merits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding on merits, as the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of appeals on merits even ex-parte. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without adjudicating the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 50C, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JM
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 31.07.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of dealing in oil. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 29.12.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,92,920/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income
Cheeran Jose Shunson Tax Officer, Ward -1, Guruvayur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 77,90,320/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 69,97,400/- being the differential amount between the apparent consideration and the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty purposes, supposedly u/s. 50C of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
On a mere reading of the assessment order it is not clear whether the appellant was given an opportunity to explain the reasons for lower apparent consideration. Furthermore, before the learned CIT(A) the appellant had explained the reasons for the lower fair market value. The CIT(A) neither dealt with the explanation offered during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A) nor passed the order on merits in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) is expected to state the points for determination and the reasons for the decision. In the present case the CIT(A) has not sated the points for determination. He simply
Cheeran Jose Shunson confirmed the action of the AO without giving any reasons for the decision.
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. 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.