CHEERAN JOSE SHUNSON,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

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

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.