VARGHESE SEBASTIAN,ANGAMALY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2, ALUVA

ITA 494/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Varghese Sebastian, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)), which had dismissed his appeal ex parte for non-prosecution regarding the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issue arose from the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-3, Aluva, who added a substantial amount to Sebastian's income, claiming it as unexplained money from cash deposits in his bank account, which Sebastian argued were proceeds from the sale of a firm. The CIT(A)'s dismissal was challenged due to procedural concerns, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714154 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• 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 LA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JM ITA No. 494/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Varghese Sebastian .......... Appellant Moolan House Angamaly P.O., Angamaly, Ernakulam Dist. [PAN: ANXPS 5743 C] vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-3, Aluva Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena La, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23.01.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual and e-filed his return of income on 16/10/2016 declaring income of Rs. 17,33,590/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 494/Coch/2025 Varghese Sebastian was completed by the ITO, Ward-3, Aluva (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 24/12/2018 at a total income of 1,96,10,410/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs 1,78,76,816/- being the cash deposits made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of the sale proceeds of the firm. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 94 days in filing this appeal. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that assessee was not aware of the order passed by the NFAC passed u/s. 250 of the Act and also due to technical difficulty in obtaining digital copy, he could not file the appeal in time. Since the averments made in the petition, not controverted by the Department, we are of the considered opinion, it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 494/Coch/2025 Varghese Sebastian 6. 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 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 learned CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 08th August, 2025 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 08th August, 2025 vr/- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 494/Coch/2025 Varghese Sebastian 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 Printed from counselvise.com "