SUNILKUMAR JAYABHAVAN DIVAKARAN,KOLLAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 612/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 December 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that it was unclear if the assessee was properly served notice by the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) had affirmed the AO's order without independent examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The assessee did not appear for the hearing before the ITAT, and the Departmental Representative relied on the lower authorities' orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without dealing with the merits of the case, and whether proper notice was served on the assessee.

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: 21.11.2024Pronounced: 10.12.2024

Asst.Year 2016-2017 Sri.Sunilkumar Jayabhavan The Assistant Commissioner Divakaran, of Income-tax v. Proprietor, M/s.Krishna Granites Circle 1(3) Trivandrum. Chiriya Velinaloor, Akkal PO Kollam – 691 516. PAN : AIUPD2141H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :--- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Pronouncement :10.12.2024 Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 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 28th June, 2023 having DIN& Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054020271(1) dated and relates to the assessment year 2016-2017.

2.

The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, however, the solitary issue which is to be decided is whether the CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without dealing with the merits of the case.

3.

When the matter was called for hearing no one appeared from the side of assessee, despite proper service of the notice

4.

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

5.

After perusing the material on record, we observe that the learned CIT(A) has issued notices to the assessee, fixing the case of hearing. Out of this, five notices, three notices were issued during Covid-19 pandemic period. Therefore, effectively, tow notices have been issued by the office of the learned CIT(A). Further, on perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), it is not clear as to whether any notice of hearing was actually served upon the assessee or not. Further, the ld.CIT(A) has just affirmed the order of the AO without independently examining the issue. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 10th day of December, 2024.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →