KUMAR JANARDHAN NAIR,THRISSUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 2(3), THRISSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 41/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 November 2024AY 2014-15Bench: 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 obligated to decide appeals on merits even if the assessee is absent. Dismissing for non-prosecution without considering the merits is incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased two pension policies and later closed them before maturity, receiving the premature value. The AO added this amount to the assessee's income under the head 'salary'. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

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

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: 20.11.2024Pronounced: 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 [CIT(A)] dated 29.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had purchased 2 pension policies from Bajaj Life Insurance Company on 16.04.2010 for Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 40,00,000/-. He closed these policies before maturity and the premature value was received during the financial year 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15. The Income Tax

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.

4.

At the outset se find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution by the assessee without dealing with the issues in the appeal on merits. 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, even in the absence of the assessee. 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 is required to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →