PAUL AND COMPANY,ERNAKULAM V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ALUVA

ITA 830/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Paul and Company, a partnership firm engaged in wholesale trading, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The firm had filed a return declaring a total income of Rs.73,34,470, which was later assessed at Rs.1,23,64,320 by the Assessing Officer due to an addition of Rs.50,29,847, attributed to cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) dismissed the firm's appeal ex parte for non-prosecution, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33587 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2023
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India, PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM ITA No. 830/Coch/2023 & SA No. 216/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Paul and Company 17/269 Market Road Aluva, Ernakulam 683101 [PAN: AADFP0737E] vs. ACIT, Circle -1 Aluva (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: ------- None ------ Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 18.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 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 [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 18.10.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm incorporated under the provisions of the Partnership Act. The assessee is carrying on business as wholesale dealer of rice, sugar, provisions and other consumable items. The return of income of AY 2017-19 was filed on 30.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.73,34,470/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 2 ITA No. 830/Coch/2023 & SA No. 216/Coch/2023 Paul and Company was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 29.12.2019 vide order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs.1,23,64,320/-. While doing so the AO made addition of Rs.50,29,847/- being the cash deposited during the demonetisation period, disbelieving the availability of cash as on the date of deposit. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the matter was called on the learned A.R. filed a letter seeking adjournment on the ground the he intends to file a paper book. The request for adjournment is declined, as the matter can be disposed of without entering into the merits, as the CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal without entering into the merits of the case. 5. We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. 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 required to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to 3 ITA No. 830/Coch/2023 & SA No. 216/Coch/2023 Paul and Company dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. Since the quantum of appeal of the assessee is disposed of by the order of remand to the CIT(A), the stay application becomes infructuous, hence dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 29th November, 2024 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 "