BAYSHORE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD I(I), KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 493/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 November 2024AY 2008-09Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and there was a significant gap in hearings. No satisfactory explanation was provided regarding notice service to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the Assessing Officer's rejection of the assessee's books and estimated business income at 8% of turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was passed without proper notice and opportunity to the assessee, and if the estimation of business income was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mohanan A., CA
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.08.2024

Appellant by: Shri Mohanan A., CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 07. 11.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1052636001(1) dated 08.05.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s impugned ex-parte lower appellate discussion has upheld the Assessing Officer’s action rejecting the assessee’s books thereby estimating 8% of it’s turnover of Rs.2,56,85,567/-; coming to Rs.20,54,845/- as it’s business income.

3.

Learned DR vehemently argued in support of the impugned addition made in assessee’s hands. The assessee at this stage invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion at page-5 in para-4 to buttress the point that this is an ex-parte order wherein the hearings had been resumed after 17.03.2020 [during Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak] to 27.03.2023 i.e., almost a gap of three years. We sought to know from the department side about the actual service of notice to the assessee wherein no satisfactory answer came. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the instant issue back to the learned CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s afresh verification and adjudication with a rider that it shall be the assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the related facts within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →