JAMES MATHEW,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOTTAYAM

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, did not file his return of income for AY 2017-18 under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 15,15,000/- in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during demonetisation period, notice u/s. 142 of the Act was issued to calling upon the appellant to file the return of income, which remained uncomplied with.

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.

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

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 dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.