SAFEENA WAHAB,KERALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, ALUVA, KERALA

ITA 400/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Safeena Wahab, the appellant, who did not initially file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 despite having sold immovable property for a substantial consideration during the financial year 2015-16. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice and subsequently completed the assessment, adding a significant amount as long-term capital gains. The appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellant approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found that the CIT(A) had not considered the materials provided by the appellant and had dismissed the appeal without a detailed discussion on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the CIT(A) to address the appeal on merits, even if dismissed ex parte, and remanded the case for a de novo hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23354 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• 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: SANJIT KUMAR DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMIL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JM ITA No. 400/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Safeena Wahab .......... Appellant Manaf Manzil, Thottakkattukara P.O. Opp. Holy Ghose Convent Road, Aluva 6831 [PAN: ACMPW0121G] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 3, Aluva Appellant by: Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 28.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 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 12.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was not filed by the appellant. As pr the information available in AIMS module the appellant had sold immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 7,43,82,750/- during FY 2015-16. Therefore, a notice was issued on 2 ITA No. 400/Coch/2024 Safeena Wahab 12.01.2018 requiring the appellant to furnish the return of income for AY 2016-17. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income on 25.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 36,561/-. The appellant had not declared any transaction of immovable property in the return. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aluva (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 4,75,68,200/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 4,75,31,640/- as long term capital gains. 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 and a few other orders. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the information filed by the appellant. 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 3 ITA No. 400/Coch/2024 Safeena Wahab 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 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. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 18th March, 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 "