M/S. VITHURA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 791/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 December 2024Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The stay application was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for failure to furnish the appeal fee challan. The assessee claimed the fee was paid and requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication when the assessee failed to furnish the appeal fee challan but claimed it was paid.

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, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Hearing: 19.11.2024Pronounced: 09.12.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.791/Coch/2023
SA No.179/Coch/2023

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 appeal of the assessee and stay applicationare arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 18.09.2023 and relates to assessment year 2011-2012.

2.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the challan of appeal fee before the CIT(A)’s office. The learned Counsel therefore prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the assessee has

3.

The learned Departmental Representative could not oppose the prayer of the assessee.

4.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that one more opportunity to be granted to the assessee in the interest of justice. Since it is settled position of law that when technical consideration of substantial cause pitted against each other cause of substantial justice should prevail as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

8.

Since we have already decided the appeal, the stay application becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed.

9.

In the result, the appeal as well as the stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 09th day of December, 2024.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →