PREMALATHA KOROTTOLIPRASANTHAM,CALICUT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD 1(2), KOZHIKODE

ITA 662/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Premalatha Korottoliprasantham, an individual engaged in the business of buying and selling automobile spare parts, who did not file her income tax return for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Following the demonetisation period, she made cash deposits which led to the issuance of a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode. The assessee's non-compliance resulted in an ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Act, with her income assessed at Rs. 16,23,149. The CIT(A) dismissed her appeal ex parte for non-prosecution, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not addressing the appeal on merits, even in an ex parte situation, and thus remanded the case for a de novo hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474726 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee [1977] 118 ITR 461 (SC), PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JINU
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM ITA No. 662/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Premalatha Korottoliprasantham .......... Appellant 1 Prasantham, Korotholi Puthiyangadi P.O. Calicut 673021 [PAN: ANCPK7154N] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode Appellant by: Ms. Jinu, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025 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 06.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of purchase and sale of automobile spare parts and accessories. The appellant had not file the return of income for AY 2017-18 under the provisions of section 139(a) of the 2 ITA No. 662/Coch/2024 Premalatha Korottoliprasantham Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). As per the information available, the assessee made cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Hence, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.01.2017 for filing the return of income. The assessee did not comply with the notice. Therefore, the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode (hereinafter called \"the AO\") completed the assessment vide order dated 12.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 16,23,149/-. While doing so, the AO made an addition of Rs.16,23,149/- under the head “Business Income”, being 8% of the total turnover. 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 Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee [1977] 118 ITR 461 (SC). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. 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 3 ITA No. 662/Coch/2024 Premalatha Korottoliprasantham 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 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 is allowed for statistical purposes 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2025. Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st January, 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 "