ROBY ROOPESH POONATTIL,KOZHIKODE V. ITO, WARD 1(3), KOZHIKODE

ITA 245/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Roby Roopesh Poonattil against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which dismissed his appeal ex parte for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The appellant had initially filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 6,25,100 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which was later assessed at Rs. 38,53,710 by the Income Tax Officer, including an addition of Rs. 34,34,508 as unexplained money. The appellant's subsequent appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution, as he did not receive the hearing notices, a situation exacerbated by his health condition (cancer). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without merit consideration and emphasized the need for a detailed discussion on the points of determination as required under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312278 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• 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: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P. RAGHUNATHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 245/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roby Roopesh Poonattil .......... Appellant Poonathil House, North Beypore, Kozhikode 673015 [PAN: AKHPR5461P] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Kozhikode Appellant by: Shri P. Raghunathan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.07.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 31.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,25,100/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(3), Kozhikode (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 38,53,710/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 2 ITA No. 245/Coch/2025 Roby Roopesh Poonattil 34,34,508/- as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the availability of opening cash balance of Rs. 2,65,000/-, sale of gold, etc. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the issues. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset it is found that the appeal was filed with a delay of 916 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the appellant had not received the hearing notices issued by the CIT(A). Consequently the appellant could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). Ultimately the appellant was diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment at Amrutha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Ernakulam. Consequently there was a delay in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the appellant came to know about the order passed by the CIT(A), only when the jurisdictional AO issued notice u/s. 221(1) of the Act on 11.03.2024. Thus, it was explained that the delay had occurred on account of factors which were beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, pleaded for condonation of delay. 6. On the other hand the learned Sr. DR had no serious objection to condone the delay. 7. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable 3 ITA No. 245/Coch/2025 Roby Roopesh Poonattil cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 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. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 30th April, 2025 n.p. 4 ITA No. 245/Coch/2025 Roby Roopesh Poonattil 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 "