KUNHI PURAYIL ARAVINDHAKSHAN,KSASARGOD vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KASARGOD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 213/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19Bench: 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 29-day delay, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a 29-day delay against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2018-2019. The assessee claimed unfamiliarity with online income tax proceedings and not checking emails as the reason for non-response.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 29-day delay in filing the appeal. 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

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: 14.05.2025

:Asst.Year 2018-2019 Kunhi Purayil Aravindhakshan The Income Tax Officer Erinhikeel House, v. Ward 1 & TPS Acham Thuruthi Kasargod. Cheruvathur, Kasaragod-671351. PAN : AMMPA5356P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sreehari A.C., CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :14.05.2025 Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 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 13.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2018-2019.

2.

There is a delay of 29 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay and a supporting affidavit stating the reasons for late filing of this appeal.

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 29 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 assessee was not familiar with the Income-tax proceedings online and did not check his emails. It was 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 nor filed written submissions. As a last opportunity, in the interest of justice and equity, we restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer (Since the relevant details / evidences were not furnished during the course of assessment proceedings). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →