SREE NARAYANA SALES AND SERVICES,EDAPALLY, KOCHI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 713/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT, citing the Punjab & Haryana High Court, ruled that notice service via the ITBA portal is not valid under Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 127(1). Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after granting the assessee a proper hearing opportunity.

What were the facts?

The appellant partnership firm's assessment for AY 2013-14 was completed by the AO with additions under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3). The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order due to the appellant's non-prosecution, leading to the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of notice service through the ITBA portal by the CIT(A) for confirming an assessment due to non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 40A(3),Section 282(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 16.01.2025Pronounced: 21.01.2025

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 21.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm. The return of income was filed on 27.09.2013 for AY 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs. 4,84,650/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 24.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Sree Narayana Sales and Services Act) at a total income of Ra. 9,79,700/-. While doing so, the AO had made additions under sections 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), etc. amounting to Rs. 4,95,049/-.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO for non- prosecution by the appellant.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before me in the present appeal.

5.

When the appeal was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.

6.

From the order of the CIT(A) it would be clear that notices of hearing were issued through ITBA portal. In my considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that

7.

Respectfully following the above judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, I remand the matter back to the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law.

8.

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

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →