KARIMBIL ABDUL JALEEL GURUKKAL,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 537/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 December 2024AY 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 to dispose of an appeal on merits even when dismissing it ex-parte for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, proprietor of an ayurveda pharmacy, filed its return of income. The assessment was completed by the AO with an addition on account of incorrect application of ICDS-II. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits. Whether the appeal should be remanded for de novo consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 Arun Raj S., Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 11.12.2024Pronounced: 11.12.2024

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 29.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, proprietor of an ayurveda pharmacy, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 07.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 18,99,760/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Kannur (hereafter “the AO”) vide order dated 27.11.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), with a delay of 4 days. After considering the reasons mentioned in the memo of appeal, CIT(A) condoned the delay. The CIT(A) issued notices u/s. 250 of the Act to the assessee, but no compliance was made. Therefore, vide the impugned order he dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of P.N. Balasubramanium (AP) 112 ITR 512.

4.

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

5.

I have 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. 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 matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 11th December, 2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →