Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2017-18. The AO completed assessment under Section 143(3) and made an addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without deciding it on merits, as the law requires disposition on merits even in ex parte cases. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of an appeal on merits even when the assessee fails to appear, or if it can be dismissed ex parte for non-prosecution.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, 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 14.08.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 on 11.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,350/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was Madathum Parambath Mohammed Iqbal completed by the Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kozhikode (hereafter “the AO”) vide order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) assessing the total income at Rs. 11,49,350/- by making addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank during the demonetisation period.
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 judgements of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT [2008] 296 ITR 495.
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. 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 Madathum Parambath Mohammed Iqbal position I am 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.