KUTHUPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KUTHUPARAMBA vs. ITO, WARD-2, KANNUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) was not willful due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside to allow the assessee to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative bank, filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee also failed to appear before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of their appeal for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution was justified, given the assessee's claim of not receiving notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’-COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
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.
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.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026