YOOSUF VALIYA PARAMBATH,KANNUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR

ITA 811/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Yoosuf Valiya Parambath, the appellant, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 as required under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, a notice under section 148 was issued, which the appellant failed to comply with. Following this, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued further notices under sections 142(1) and 144B, which also went unanswered, leading to a best judgment assessment under sections 143, 144, and 144B, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,58,86,668. The CIT(A) dismissed the subsequent appeal ex parte for non-prosecution. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not addressing the appeal on its merits and remanded the case for a de novo hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312643 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• 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: OMANAKUTTAN
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDRA SHARMA
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA No. 811/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yoosuf Valiya Parambath .......... Appellant Valiya Parambath House, Palathai Panoor, Kadavathur, Kannur 670676 [PAN: APKPV6497B] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & TPS, Kannur Appellant by: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025 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 19.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, had not filed return of income for AY 2017-18 u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 24.03.2021. The assessee did not 2 ITA No. 811/Coch/2024 Yoosuf Valiya Parambath comply with the above notice. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act and show cause notices were issued to the appellant, but the appellant did respond to the same. Therefore the AO was compelled to pass best judgement assessment u/s. 143 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act on 19.03.2022 at a total income of Rs. 1,58,86,668/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of unexplained money of Rs. 1,58,86,688/- u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. 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 CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3 ITA No. 811/Coch/2024 Yoosuf Valiya Parambath 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes 6. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 29th April, 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 Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "