ABDUL JALEEL,PALAKKAD V. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

ITA 835/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Abdul Jaleel, an individual engaged in the business of trading/wholesale distribution of Idea Cellular Ltd. products, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (AO) noted cash deposits of Rs. 19,02,400 made during the demonetisation period and issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which Jaleel failed to comply with. Consequently, the AO made a best judgment assessment adding Rs. 7,95,160 to Jaleel's income, which included commission received and cash deposits in specified bank notes. Jaleel's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788866 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETHU S.
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 835/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Jaleel .......... Appellant Vapparakkal Kongad II, Parasery Kongad, Palakkad 678631 [PAN: BFPPA5260M] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-1 & TPS, Palakkad.......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 07.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading/wholesale distributor of the products of Idea Cellular Ltd. The appellant had not filed the return of income for AY 2017-18. Based on the information that the appellant had made cash deposits in bank account during demonetisation period of Rs. 19,02,400/- the The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Palakkad (hereinafter called \"the AO\") Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 835/Coch/2025 Abdul Jaleel formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Therefore, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued to the appellant on 25.01.2018. The appellant did not comply with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances the AO was compelled to pass best judgement assessment making addition of Rs. 7,95,160/- on account of commission received by the appellant of Rs. 3,82,163/- and cash deposit of Rs. 4,13,000/- made in specified bank notes during the demonetisation period. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. 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 Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 835/Coch/2025 Abdul Jaleel 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 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th November, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 28th November, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "