MELAKKADY KUNIYIL SUNEER,BADAGARA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 158/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 January 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: passing any order.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not deal with the assessee's documentary evidences, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matters were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper hearing. The stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, contending that the CIT(A) failed to consider crucial contentions and documentary evidence. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order was non-judicious and not in accordance with Section 250(6) due to the failure to consider the assessee's contentions and documentary evidence.

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: 09.01.2025Pronounced: 22.01.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.158/Coch/2024
ITA No.159/Coch/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R

Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :

1.

The present appeals of the assessee are arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 17th January, 2024 and it relates to the assessment years2013-2014 and 2014-2015, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1059804295(1)& No.ITBA/ NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1059803614(1), respectively.

2.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the contentions of the assessee in a judicious manner.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the ld.CIT(A) has not at all dealt with the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in support of his case, meaning thereby the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is not in accordance with the provisions of sec.250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit these matters back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the Ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.

6.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

Since we have already decided the appeals the stay applications filed by assessee become infructuous and hence the same are dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →