CHAMIMOOTHAN MASILAMANI,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD-1 & (TPS), PALAKKAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 627/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 December 2024AY 2013-14Bench: 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 the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without considering the merits and failed to record proper notice service. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, but the Departmental Representative argued that the dismissal was justified due to non-cooperation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without a reasoned order and proper notice service.

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: 21.11.2024Pronounced: 10.12.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.627/Coch/2024
SA No.149/Coch/2024

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

Asst.Year 2013-2014 & SA No.149/Coch/2024 Sri.Chamimoothan Masilamani The Income Tax Officer 27/759(1) Uppath House Ward 1 & TPS v. Palakkad. Thirupuraikkal Colony Vadakenthara Palakkad – 678 006. PAN : AEPPM2439G. (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 along with stay application are arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 23.10.2023 and relates to assessment year 2013-2014, bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057304749(1).

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite the service of the notice. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal and stay after hearing the learned Departmental Representative.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below and contended that the assessee being non-cooperative, the CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal.

5.

After hearing the learned DR and perusing the material on record, we observe that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by an ex parte order, without dealing with the merits of the case. Provisions of section 250(6) provides that the CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose the appeal by way of a reasoned order. Further, the CIT(A) has failed to record in his order, as to whether any notice has been served on the assessee. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, we restore this matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh. Needless to say, the CIT(A) will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →