THRISSUR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION CO-OP SOCIETY LTD NO. R 1107,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 912/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound under Section 250(6) to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if dismissed ex-parte. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative society, failed to file its ITR for AY 2017-18. The AO made an addition of Rs. 10,73,200/- under Section 69A (unexplained money) during a Section 144 assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and the proper procedure for disposing of appeals under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K.K., CA
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 16.01.2025Pronounced: 21.01.2025

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 11.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society. The appellant failed to furnish the return of income for AY 2017-18 either u/s. 139 and also in response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). On the basis of the information gathered during the phase of online verification under ‘Operation Clean Money’, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur Thrissur House Construction Co-op Society Ltd. (hereinafter called "the AO") found that the appellant has deposited Rs. 10,73,200/- with Thrissur District Central Co-op. Bank durng the demonetisation period. Hence, the AO completed the assessment vide order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 10.73,200/-. While doing so, the AO made addition u/s. 69A of the Act of Rs. 10,73,200/-.

3.

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 Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 and a few other orders.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

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 Thrissur House Construction Co-op Society Ltd. of the above legal 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.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →