KOYAMU KAKKAT,CALICUT vs. ITO, KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 228/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the 327-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the appellant's age (72 years) and illness. The case was remanded back to the AO to reconcile gross receipts as per Form 26AS with the Profit & Loss Account and to consider collected service tax as income after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The appellant, an individual engaged in contract works, filed a return for AY 2015-16. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3), making an addition of Rs. 62,83,625/- for service tax collected from customers but not shown as contract receipt. The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's appeal for non-prosecution, leading to the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the addition of service tax collected as income without proper reconciliation is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Shri G. Santhosh Pai, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 15.05.2025Pronounced: 16.05.2025

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 29.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of execution of contract works. The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed on 03.10.2016 declaring income of Rs. 8,96,870/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Koyamu Kakkat Kozhikode (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 292.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 71,80,500/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 62,83,625/- on account of service tax collected from customers but not shown as contract receipt.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

5.

At the outset we find that there is a delay of 327 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellant is a senior citizen aged 72 years, was bed ridden from February 2024. Therefore it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

6.

The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO erred in making addition of Rs. 62,83,625/- without considering the mistakes done by the TDS deductors.

Koyamu Kakkat 7. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the AO to reconcile the gross receipts as per Form 26AS and gross receipts credited to Profit and Loss Account, if the service tax is collected by the appellant, the same should be treated as income of the appellant after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →