MANALEL AGENCIES,THIRUVALLA vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order did not adjudicate the assessee's grounds on merits as required. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was heard ex parte as no one appeared on their behalf. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had previously rejected the assessee's contentions without deciding the substantive grounds on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC's order properly adjudicated the assessee's grounds on merits. The procedural fairness of the NFAC's ex parte order.
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
O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in 2014-2015 arises from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1058948261(1) dated 21.12.2023, in proceedings u/s.271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte against the assessee.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance in the . Manalel Agencies. lower appellate proceedings before rejecting it’s contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge. Learned 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. Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 271E
- Shevam Jugalkishor Kothari, Akola vs ITO-Ward 2, AkolaITA 722/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs A.K.Thangamaligai, Manapparai, TrichyITA 2868/CHNY/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Nisa Chits India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs ITO, Corporate Ward-1, CoimbatoreITA 2868/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Pedapudi Primary Agricultural Co Operative… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, TenaliITA 525/VIZ/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Pedapudi Primary Agricultural Co Operative… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, TenaliITA 524/VIZ/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026