KUTHUPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KUTHUPARAMBA vs. ITO, WARD-2, KANNUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’-COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’-COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 356/Coch/2024 Assessment Year : 2009-10
M/s. Kuthuparamba Service Co- operative Bank Ltd., The Income Tax Main Road, Kuthuparamba P O, Officer, Kannur – 670 643. Ward – 2, Kerala. Kannur. Vs. PAN: AABAK3157C APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR
Date of Hearing : 01-10-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28-10-2024
ORDER PER BENCH This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Addl/JCI(A)-2, Pune dated 21/02/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2009-10.
The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The assessment was made u/s. 144 of the Act based on the profit & loss account filed by the assessee. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). But the assessee had also not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecuting the same.
Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 356/Coch/2024 3. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of argument, the assessee disputed the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) and the disallowance of provision for overdue loans and contended that the assessee had not received any notices from the Ld.CIT(A) and not even alert or message was received by the assessee through SMS and therefore the assessee was not able to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR on the other hand submitted that the assessment as well as the appellate orders are ex-parte orders and therefore no leniency could be shown to the assessee.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
We have perused the submission made by the assessee that no notices were received by them in email ID and no SMS alert was also received by the assessee and therefore the non-appearance of the assessee before the authorities are not willful. The said fact was also not disputed before us. We, therefore, in the interest of justice inclined to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh after hearing the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 28th October, 2024. /MS /
Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 356/Coch/2024 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cochin
