KUNNATH PAPER MILLS (P) LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), THRISSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 155/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 December 2024Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an addition of Rs. 54 lakhs made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2011-12. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a reasoned order and provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN

Hearing: 25.11.2024Pronounced: 09.12.2024

O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 3.1.2024 and relates to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. However, the solitary issue which is to be decided is whether the ld. CIT(A) is correct in law in confirming the addition of Rs.54 lakhs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) to the income of the assessee.

1.

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee craved that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore, an opportunity of being heard may kindly be given to the assessee.

Kunnath Paper Mills (P) Ltd., Palakkad Page 2 of 2 4. The ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

After considering the rival submissions and material on record, we observe that the order of ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order. The Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of section 250(6) it is obligatory on his part to pass a reasoned order. However in the present case the Ld CIT(A) has not adhere to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and hence, in the interest of justice, we afford one more opportunity to the assessee for representing his case before the ld. CIT(A).

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →