Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Sri K.N. Sreekumar, filed appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi, concerning assessment years 2006-2007 to 2012-2013. The appeals were previously dismissed for non-prosecution but later restored by the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and did not adequately address the key issues. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to place all relevant material on record.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee substantiated the claim of agricultural income; Whether the set-off of business loss with short-term capital gain was correctly dealt with by the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
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
: Asst.Year 2009-2010 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.113/Coch/2021 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 ITA No.114/Coch/2021 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 Sri.K.N.Sreekumar The Assistant Commissioner Sarovarm, Kanakary of Income-tax v. Kottayam – 686 632. Kottayam. PAN : CIOPS34597L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 Date of Hearing : 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : The present appeals of the assessee are arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi dated 5th August, 2021 and it relates to the assessment years2006-2007 to 2012-2013.
Since common issues are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
These appeals were earlier dismissed by the ITAT for want of prosecution from the side of the assessee. However the
Today, when the matter was called for, an adjournment application was filed by the assessee. However, these appeals are very old and the order of the CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, so the Bench felt that the bench will decide the matter. Therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee stands rejected.
The learned Departmental Representative could not seriously object to the suggestion of the bench for restoring the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding afresh.
After perusing the material available on record, we observe that two major issues are involved in these cases, i.e., (i) issue of agricultural income, for which the CIT(A) has held that the assessee failed to file any evidence to substantiate its claim of agricultural income, and (ii) set off of the business loss with short term capital gain, on this issue the CIT(A) has not dealt in detail. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the matters require fresh adjudication at the end of the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we restore these matters to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to place on record all the relevant material before the CIT(A) so that the issues involved can be decided in judicious manner.
Order pronounced on this 22nd day of January, 2025.