THE NADUVIL SERVICE CO.OPERATIVE BANK ,KANNUR vs. ITO,WARD 4, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 227/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri George George K (Vice President), Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices, which the assessee claimed were not served.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 460 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee not being aware of the CIT(A)'s disposal order, as no notice or alert was received.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside due to non-service of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Hearing: 15.05.2025

:Asst.Year 2017-2018 The Naduvil Service Co- The Income Tax Officer operative Bank, P.O. Naduvil v. Ward - 4 Kannur – 670 582. Kannur. PAN : AACAT8761E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :15.05.2025 Pronouncement : 15.05.2025 O R D E R

Per George George K, Vice-President :

1.

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] dated 11.10.2023 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018.

2.

There is a delay of 460 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay supported by an affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee co-operative society. The reasons stated for belated filing of the appeal is that the assessee was not aware of the disposal of the appeal by the NFAC, as no notice or appellate . The Naduvil SC.B Limited. order was served on the assessee, and even no SMC alert was received in the mobile phone. It is further submitted that the assessee became aware of the order passed by the CIT(A) only on receipt of the penalty order passed u/s.270A of the Act, by the jurisdictional Officer. It is therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned.

2.1 We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. We are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay of 460 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits.

3.

At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte order since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices issued from the office of the CIT(A). The learned A.R. submitted that the notices stated to have been sent from the office of the CIT(A) has not been served on the assessee, consequently, the same were not complied with. It is prayed that in the interest of natural justice and equity the matter may be restored to the files of the CIT(A).

4.

On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the CIT(A)'s order is ex parte order since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices . The Naduvil SC.B Limited. nor filed written submissions. In the interest of justice and equity, we restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal of the appeal, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 15th day of May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →