UNNIKRISHNAN KUNNAMPALLY,MALAPPURAM, KERALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1122/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 April 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. Noting that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on whether a hearing notice was served, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a meaningful opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order for Assessment Year 2018-2019, which was dismissed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. There was a 94-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which a condonation petition was filed.

What were the issues?

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. 2. Whether the CIT(A) denied natural justice by dismissing the appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

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

Hearing: 25.02.2025Pronounced: 04.04

Asst.Year 2018-2019 Unnikrishnan Kunnampally The Income Tax Officer Kunnampally Uk House Ward v. Wandoor, Malappuram 679 328. Malappuram. PAN : AAOPU8563E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Sri.K.Balaji, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 04.04. 2025 Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 O R D E R

Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :

1.

The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 25th July, 2024 and relates to the assessment year 2018- 2019 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067038175(1).

2.

There was a delay of 94 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. On perusal of the condonation petition, we find that there is reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

. Unnikrishnan Kunnampally. 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below and could not controvert the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Insofar as the merit of the case, the only prayer of the learned Counsel is for restoration of the present appeal before the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We observe that the ld.CIT(A)’s order is completely silent as to whether any notice of hearing was served upon the assessee or not. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 04th day of April, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →