RAGHAVAN SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3(1),, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 265/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member), Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing the assessee from presenting their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the AO's order before the CIT(A) regarding disallowance of indexed cost of construction. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not comply with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the AO's ex-parte order when notices were not served at the correct email ID.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Hearing: 02.05.2024Pronounced: 08.05.2024

O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee raised give grounds of appeal, amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is justified in confirming the order of AO ex-parte of assessee.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →