OCEAN MEDICALS,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 239/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri George George K (Vice President), Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal. This was done as a last opportunity in the interest of justice and equity, directing the assessee to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte as the assessee failed to respond to hearing notices and did not submit any written submissions. The assessee's representative requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance should be set aside and the appeal restored for a fresh hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

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 M/s.Ocean Medicals The Income Tax Officer 16/395C, Palakkulamveliyil v. Alappuzha. Sanathanam Ward Alappuzha – 688 001. PAN : AAAFO4167C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Mathew Joseph, CA 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 30.01.2025 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018.

2.

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) and also not uploaded any response and written submissions to substantiate its claim. The learned A.R. submitted that all the . Ocean Medicals. necessary documents are available with the assessee, and therefore, prayed that in the interest of natural justice and equity the matter may be restored to the files of the CIT(A).

3.

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

4.

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 nor filed written submissions. As a last opportunity, 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.

5.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →