KUTTIKAD FARMERS SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. WARD 1(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to provide at least three effective opportunities of hearing for the assessee to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was rejected ex-parte due to continuous non-appearance. The NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC's ex-parte order, which failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds on merits, is sustainable. The need for proper adjudication of appeal grounds by the appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Appellant by : Smt.Parvathy Ammal, CA Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 07.11. 2024 Date of Hearing : 23.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal 2014-2015 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058705541(1) dated 13.12.2023 in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting the assessee’s contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge. Learned . Kuttikad Farmers SC.B Ltd. Sr.DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the NFAC’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 07th November, 2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026