KANNANKULAM POULOSE JOHNY,THRISSUR V. ITO, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

ITA 380/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kannankulam Poulose Johny, the appellant, who did not file a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) made a best judgment assessment adding Rs. 5,00,000 to the assessee's income, based on information about cash deposits in specified bank notes during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. The appellant, upon receiving a show-cause notice for levy of penalty, filed an appeal with a delay of 359 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, emphasizing the need for a detailed discussion and points of determination as required under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712610 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (279 CTR 614)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K.P. JOHNY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 380/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kannankulam Poulose Johny, .......... Appellant Kannankulam House, Poovanchira Pananchery, Thrissur-680 652 [PAN: ACFPJ 2655 M] vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri K.P. Johny, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Guwahati [CIT(A)] dated 26.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. No regular return of income for the AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee. Based on the information that the assessee made cash Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 676/Coch/2024 Meat Products of India Ltd. deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) during demonetization period of Rs.5,00,000/- with Federal Bank, Pattikad Branch, the ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur (for short, 'AO') issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 26/02/2018. The assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) nor letter issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. In these circumstnnances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment and made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by observing that assessee made cash deposits in SBNs during demonitization period. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal with a delay of 359 days. 5. At the outset, I find that the present is filed with a delay 359 days. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that assessee was not aware about the order passed by the NFAC u/s. 250 on 26/03/2024. The assessee came to know the passing of the order only on receiving show-cause notice for levy of penalty and immediately appeal was filed on 19/05/2025 with delay Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 676/Coch/2024 Meat Products of India Ltd. of 359 days. On careful perusal of the averments made in the affidavit, it is evident that the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the NFAC u/s. 250 till receipt of the penalty notice. Since only ignorance of the order, I am of the considered opinion that for the purpose of limitation period for filing the appeal, the date on which assessee was came to know the order passed by the NFAC should be reckoned. Accordingly, if it is treated that when the date of knowledge, the order is received by the assessee, passed by the order of the NFAC, there is no delay in filing of the present appeal. Accordingly, there is no delay. 6. 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 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. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 676/Coch/2024 Meat Products of India Ltd. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 31st July, 2025 vr/- 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 "