ABDULLAH ABOOBECKER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), TRIVANDRUM

PDF
ITA 660/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee, an individual, did not file a regular return of income for AY 2016-17. The AO issued notices under section 148A(b) and 148, subsequently completing the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144, treating cash deposits as unexplained money.

Held

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all grounds, specifically the pleas that the order under section 148A(d) was illegal due to insufficient response time and non-disposal of objections.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the grounds of appeal, particularly concerning the validity of the proceedings initiated under section 148A due to alleged procedural deficiencies.

Sections Cited

139(1), 148A(b), 148A(d), 148, 147, 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 31.10.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA No. 660/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdullah Aboobeeker .......... Appellant Parppidam Priyadarshini Nagar, Mancha P.O. Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram 695541 [PAN: AOCPA6169A] vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Thiruvananthapuram ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025

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 (NFAC) dated 27.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2016-17. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act on 08.03.2023 directing the appellant to file response on or before 14.04.2023 and the order u/s.

2 ITA No. 660/Coch/2025 Abdullah Aboobeeker 148A(d) was passed on 29.03.2023 and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29.03.2023. Subsequently, the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 on 28.03.2024 at a total income of Rs. 87,48,750/- treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) contested that the order passed u/s. 148A(b) is illegal as the appellant was given a period less than 7 days to respond to the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and the objections filed by the appellant were not disposed of by the AO. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The appellant had took a specific plea that the order passed u/s. 148A(d) is illegal, inasmuch as, the appellant was not afforded clear period 7 days to respond to the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and also took the plea that the AO had failed to dispose of the objections filed before passing the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate these ground of appeal. Since these grounds of appeal go to the very root of the matter, we are of the

3 ITA No. 660/Coch/2025 Abdullah Aboobeeker considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 31st October, 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

ABDULLAH ABOOBECKER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), TRIVANDRUM | BharatTax