SIVARAMAPILLAI ANILKUMAR,KOLLAM V. ITO,W-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 893/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sivaramanpillai Anilkumar, an individual engaged in the business of distributing mobile phone recharge coupons, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer (AO) had made significant additions to the appellant's income, disallowing a large portion of business expenditure for non-deduction of tax at source and adding amounts for non-payment of GST. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without addressing the merits of the case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the legal requirement of disposing of the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the appellant, and thus remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23454 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Section: 143(3); 43B; 44AB; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 893/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sivaramanpillai Anilkumar .......... Appellant A.S. Communications, Chathannoor Kollam 691572 [PAN: AGRPA1890K] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Trivandurm Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025 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 01.08.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of distribution of mobile phone recharge coupons as an agent of BSNL. The return of income for AY 2018-19 was filed on 27.10.2018 declaring total income of R. 5,19,410/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Trivandrum (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order 2 ITA No. 893/Coch/2024 Sivaramanpillai Anilkumar dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of s. 35,73,940/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed Rs. 29,48,455/- being 30% of the total business expenditure of Rs. 97,13,806/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax source. The AO also made an addition of Rs. 1,40,383/- u/s. 43B for nonpayment of GST. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal 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, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. The AO made adhoc disallowance while framing the assessment order. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. It is the settled position of law that even in the case of an exparte order passed by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. In the grounds of appeal the appellant took a specific plea that there is no liability on its part to deduct tax at source, since the turnover for FYs 2017-18 does not exceed the monetary limit specified u/s. 44AB of the Act. Therefore, by virtue of provisions of section 194H of the Act there was no liability to deduct tax at source. The CIT(A), without adverting to the grounds of appeal dismissed the appeal. 3 ITA No. 893/Coch/2024 Sivaramanpillai Anilkumar 7. 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. Ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 19th February, 2025 n.p. 4 ITA No. 893/Coch/2024 Sivaramanpillai Anilkumar 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 "