POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years: 2014- Assessment Years: 2015- Assessment Years: 2016- Assessment Years: 2017-18 Power Security Corp Pvt Ltd., Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.22, Lake Area, Corp Ward-5(2), 1st Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AAGCP2703C] Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. Revenue by : Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M :

These four appeals filed by the assessee - Company are directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (herein after called CIT(A)’ in short], dated 01.10.2025 for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively.

2.0 Since identical facts and issues are involved in four of these appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of vide this common order.

3.0 For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal bearing for the Assessment Year 2014-15 are stated herein.

4.0 Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company engaged in providing security, surveillance, cleaning and building maintenance services. No return of income for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 was filed under the provision of 139 of the Act. However, based on the information, the appellant made payments to the contractor and made cash deposits in the bank, the AO formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, issued notice u/s 148 on 31.07.2022 after duly complying with the procedure laid u/s 148A of the Act. The appellant had not complied with the said notice u/s 148 nor complied the notice u/s 142(1). In circumstances, the AO proceeded with framing of the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act vide order dated 18.04.2023 at a total income of Rs.35,14,814/-. While doing so, the AO estimated the profit at 7% of the payment made to contractor.

5.0 Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, a rectification petition was filed before the AO stating that a notice u/s 148 was barred by Page - 2 - of 4 limitation. The rectification petition was dismissed by the AO vide order dated 13.06.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal by holding that there is no mistake apparent on the record. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

6.0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on records. We find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the addition. The CIT(A) without dealing with the contentions of the appellant merely 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 ex-parte, he 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.

Page - 3 - of 4 7.0 In the result, the appeal No. ITA-3506/Chny/2025 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.0 Since the facts and issues involved in the present appeal of the assessee is identical, therefore, our decision in for A.Y. 2014-15 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal nos. in for A.Y- 2016-17 and for the A.Y 2017-18 also.

9.0 In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 27th , January-2026 at Chennai.