JOMY JACOB,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO,WARD -3, TIRUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 699/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 October 2024Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's reason for non-appearance, which was due to not checking email or receiving SMS alerts. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist and wholesale glass dealer, had cash deposits during demonetisation treated as unexplained income, and agricultural income disallowed. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was justified, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR

Heard together (2 matters)

S.A. No. 157/Coch/2023
ITA No. 699/Coch/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER PER BENCH This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 29/08/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and also doing wholesale business of glass. The AO treated the cash deposits

Page 2 of 3 S.A. No. 157/Coch/2023 & made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the act and also disallowed the agricultural income. As against the said order, the assessee field an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised various grounds on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) had issued notices on 3 occasions through online but the assessee had not responded and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecuting the same. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not logged into his email account and he has also not received any real time alert by way of SMS and therefore the assessee was not able to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed for one opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

4.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5.

Even though, the assessee had raised various grounds in support of their case, we are not inclined to adjudicate the same for the simple reason that the Ld.CIT(A) had no occasion to consider the issue on merits. We have considered the reasons for the non appearance and accepted the same. In view of that, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same on merits in accordance with law. In view of the disposal of the main appeal,the stay petition becomes infructuous and dismissed as such.

Page 3 of 3 S.A. No. 157/Coch/2023 & ITA No. 699/Coch/2023

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →