M/S JAS SUPER MARKET, KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD-4, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 265/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 August 2025AY 2014-2015Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) issued notice through email without proof of service. When no response was received, the CIT(A) should have issued notice through physical mode as per Section 262 of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm running a supermarket, filed a return declaring a loss. The AO completed the assessment at a higher income by making an addition for failure to deduct rent on the building. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed the proper procedure for issuing notices and affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 262

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 04.06.2025Pronounced: 05.08.2025

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 20.01.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running a super market. The return of income for AY 2014-15 was filed on 25.06.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 46,990/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 109.10.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of Jas Super Market the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,71,290/-. While doing so, the AO made addition o Rs. 2,18,280/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure of the assessee to deduct rent on the building.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

4.

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

5.

At the outset we find that the CIT(A) issued notice through email. There is no proof of service of notice of hearing on the appellant. When there was no response to the notice issued through email, it is the duty of the CIT(A) to serve notice through physical mode as prescribed u/s. 262 of the Act, accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo 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.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →