PARAYANIKKAL VARGEESE ANTONY,KANNUR V. ITO,WARD 3, KANNUR

ITA 922/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Parayanikkal Vargeese Antony, the appellant, who did not file a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the AO, to which the appellant responded by filing a return declaring a total income significantly lower than what was assessed by the AO. The AO had made a substantial addition to the income based on cash withdrawals, inferring excess cash expenditure. The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's appeal for non-prosecution, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural impropriety in the dismissal by CIT(A) and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360914 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Section: 147; 148; 40A(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM ITA No. 922/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Parayanikkal Vargeese Antony .......... Appellant Iind Floor, Appus Tower, New Bus Stand Payannur, Kannur 670307 [PAN: AXYPA0126A] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 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 24.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for AY 2018-19 was filed by the appellant. The AO issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 30.03.2022. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed the return of income on 29.04.2022 declaring total 2 ITA No. 922/Coch/2024 Parayanikkal Vargeese Antony income of Rs. 2,25,880/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 24.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 2,58,02,910/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 2,55,77,030/- being the cash withdrawn from the South Indian Bank by drawing inference that the appellant had incurred cash expenditure in excess of the limit prescribed u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. 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 3 ITA No. 922/Coch/2024 Parayanikkal Vargeese Antony 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 the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 22nd May, 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 "