Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-resident in UAE, sold immovable properties, declaring capital gains. The AO completed assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144C(3) and made an addition for long-term capital gain. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is legally obligated under Section 250(6) to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex-parte. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, and if so, whether the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 144C(3), 250(6)
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
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 11.09.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non resident settled in UAE. On the basis of the MNS data under AIMS module of ITBA portal the Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kozhikode (hereinafter called "the AO") found that the appellant sold 3 items of immovable properties, the capital gains from which Ahamed Kovval Haji were declared in the return of income. The AO completed the assessment vide order date 26.05.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 23.14,928/-. While doing so the AO made addition on account of long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 17,30,218/-.
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 decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of MNew Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT [2008] 296 ITR 495 and others.
Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I 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 I am of the considered view that the Ahamed Kovval Haji 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes