PAUL AND COMPANY,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ALUVA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 830/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: 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) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits even when dismissing it ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 50,29,847/- on account of cash deposited during demonetisation. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without deciding it on merits. Whether the CIT(A) is obligated to consider the appeal on its merits even in case of non-prosecution by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 18.11.2024Pronounced: 29.11.2024

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 [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 18.10.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm incorporated under the provisions of the Partnership Act. The assessee is carrying on business as wholesale dealer of rice, sugar, provisions and other consumable items. The return of income of AY 2017-19 was filed on 30.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.73,34,470/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment SA No. 216/Coch/2023 Paul and Company was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 29.12.2019 vide order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs.1,23,64,320/-. While doing so the AO made addition of Rs.50,29,847/- being the cash deposited during the demonetisation period, disbelieving the availability of cash as on the date of deposit.

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.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the matter was called on the learned A.R. filed a letter seeking adjournment on the ground the he intends to file a paper book. The request for adjournment is declined, as the matter can be disposed of without entering into the merits, as the CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal without entering into the merits of the case.

5.

We 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 we are of the considered view that the matter required to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to

6.

Since the quantum of appeal of the assessee is disposed of by the order of remand to the CIT(A), the stay application becomes infructuous, hence dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →