KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA,THRISSUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 & TPS, GURUVAYOOR

ITA 525/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kamaludheen Fathima, the appellant, who faced scrutiny from the Income Tax Department due to substantial cash deposits and withdrawals in her bank accounts during the assessment year 2017-18. The National Faceless Assessment Centre issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the appellant did not comply with, leading to a best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed her appeal for non-prosecution, prompting her to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the CIT(A)'s handling of the appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716980 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETHU S.
• Assessee Lawyers: HIRAN C.
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 525 & 534/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kamaludheen Fathima .......... Appellant Nalakathu Parambil, Pavaratty Maruthayood P.O., Guruvayoor 680101 [PAN: AARPF3870A] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-1 & TPS, Guruvayur......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Hiran C., CA Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 08.08.2024 & 13.08.2024 in quantum and penalty appeals respectively, for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income was filed by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 1,06,67,283/- and also withdrawn cash from the current account Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 525 & 534/Coch/2025 Kamaludheen Fathima during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called \"the AO\") issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 24.03.2021. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s. 148 nor notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO had passed best judgement assessment vide order dated 24.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 1,09,71,738/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposits made in the bank account maintained with ICICI Bank of Rs. 1,06,67,283/- as unexplained money of the assessee. The AO also made addition of total credits of Rs. 2,96,667/- made to various banks as unexplained money of the appellant. 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. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 266 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred as the Chartered Accountant, who was entrusted with the matter failed to comply with the hearing notices as a result the appeal was dismissed exparte. He handed over Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 525 & 534/Coch/2025 Kamaludheen Fathima the order to the appellant only in December, 2024. Due to the continuing ill health of the appellant, she could not follow up the matter. In support of her ill heath a medical certificate is also placed on record. It is submitted that the delay is not willful or deliberate. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We 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 we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 525 & 534/Coch/2025 Kamaludheen Fathima the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. Since the quantum appeal is restored to the file CIT(A), the penalty appeal is also restored back to the learned CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2025. Sd/- `Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 19th August, 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 "