ANEAK KOYA VALAPPIL,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 425/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 December 2024AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case. The CIT(A) has a duty to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2007-08. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued, and the assessee filed a return showing a certain income. The AO completed the assessment, making an addition for long-term capital gain on property sale.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 134,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147

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 & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathi Ammal, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 21.11.2024Pronounced: 09.12.2024

O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30.03.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had not filed return of income for AY 2007-08 under the provisions of section 134 of the Aneak Koya Valappil Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Kozhikode (hereinafter “the AO”) had received an information that Shri K.V. Aneak, Baputty Mandiram along with this brother K.V. Arun had executed a sale agreement dated 22.09.2006 with Shri K.P. Madhukrishnan for sale of property owned by them at Kalathikunnu Desom of Kozhikode Corporation for total consideration of Rs. 1,59,87,000/-. Thus, he formed an opinion that income escaped to tax. A notice u/s. 148 was issued on 18.03.2014. In response to the said notice, assessee filed return of income showing a total income of Rs. 2,04,2909/-. Against the said return of income, the AO completed assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 62,41,747/- making an addition of Rs. 58,27,029/- towards long term capital gain on sale of property.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

4.

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

5.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Form the perusal of the impugned order it is found that the CIT(A), had merely dismissed the appeal for non prosecution without going into the merits of the case. 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 we are of the Aneak Koya Valappil considered view that the matter required 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →