KOLLAMKULAM TOMY MATHEW,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 777/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 November 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable as there was no obligation for the appellant to pay self-assessment tax without the additions. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) to decide the issues afresh after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The appellant did not file an income tax return for AY 2014-15. Based on information of commodities transactions, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings, issued notices, and, due to non-compliance, completed a best judgment assessment, adding unexplained cash deposits and profit from commodities. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by invoking Section 249(4)(b) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) and the validity of the best judgment assessment and additions made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 06.11.2025Pronounced: 21.11.2025

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew .......... Appellant Kollamkulam, Kanjirappally 682020 [PAN: AKYPM6369A] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 25.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No return of income for AY 2014-15 was filed by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant had entered into commodities transactions aggregating to Rs. 1,92,73,410/- during the previous year relevant to AY 2014-15, the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department (hereinafter called "the AO") formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, the AO Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 29.06.2022 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s. 148A of the Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice issued u/s. 148 nor the notices issued u/s. 142(1) calling for certain information. In the circumstances, the AO proceeded with framing of best judgement assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 18.05.2023 at total income of Rs. 12,85,180/-. While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs. 11,11,573/- as unexplained money of the appellant. The AO also made addition of Rs. 1,73,610/- on account of profit from commodities transactions.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine invoking provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this 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 proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.

6.

The material on record clearly indicates that but for the additions made in the assessment there was no taxable income. In the circumstances, there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to pay self assessment tax. Therefore, provisions of section Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew 249(4)(b) has no application to the facts of the case. Therefore, I remand the matter back to the file of the NFAC to decide the issues raised by the appellant after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. All the contentions raised by appellant are kept open before the NFAC.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →