AYYAMBRATH IBRAHIM ABDUL SALEEM,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 113/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER | ITA No. | Assessment Year | |---|---| | 113/Coch/2025 | 2016-17 | | Appellant Details | Respondent Details | |---|---| | Ayyambrath Ibrahim Abdul Saleem, Ayyambrath Thrikkakara, Pallilamkara, Kalamassery, Ernakulam 683 503, Kerala, PAN NO: AHLPA4281D | DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ernakulam | | | | |---|---| | Appellant by | Shri Shaji Paulose, A.R. | | Respondent by | Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. | | Date of 2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the D.R. did not rebut the assessee's claim regarding non-receipt of the AO's order. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after condoning the 32-day delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 32-day delay in filing. The assessee contended that the delay occurred because the original order of the Assessing Officer was not received via e-mail.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal due to a delay when the assessee claimed non-receipt of the Assessing Officer's order via e-mail.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 29.05.2025Pronounced: 23.06.2025

Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 11.11.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070255173(1) and relates to the AY 2016-17.

2.

At the outset, we observe that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the appeal without condoning the delay of 32 days.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the reason for delay was non-receipt of the order of AO within time.

4.

Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below.

Ayyambrath Ibrahim Abdul Saleem, Ernakulam Page 2 of 2 5. We heard the rival submission and perused the materials available on record. The contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that original order of AO was not received by the assessee on e-mail, which has not been rebutted by the ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 32 days. Considering the totality of the facts, we hereby restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law, after condoning the delay of 32 days happened before the ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Jun, 2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →