VASUDEVAN LASH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD (1), KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 652/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 January 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)2 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 found that the Ld.CIT(A) had not judiciously dealt with the matter and failed to pass a speaking order as mandated by Section 250(6). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring a meaningful opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-2012. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A)'s order was not a reasoned one and requested another opportunity to be heard before the Ld.CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) passed a reasoned speaking order and provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

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: 08.01.2025Pronounced: 22.01.2025

Asst.Year 2011-2012 Sri.Vasudevan Lash The Income Tax Officer 24/91, C2-Athady Apartments Ward 1 v. Kaloor Road Junction, Kozhikode. Kozhikode – 673 007. PAN : ACOPL8130E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Radhakrishnan K, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 Date of Hearing : 08.01.2025 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 13th July, 2023 and it relates to the assessment year 2011-2012, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024- 25/1054347444(1).

2.

The leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset contended that one more opportunity of being heard may be granted to the assessee to represent the case before the Ld.CIT(A). The learned Counsel further contended that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is not a reasoned order and hence an opportunity of being heard may kindly be granted to the assessee.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We are constrained to observe that the Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the matter in a judicious manner. In terms of provisions of sec.250(6), it is the abundant duty of the Ld.CIT(A) to pass a speaking order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the Ld.CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →