PRIME MARKETING,KANNUR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 281/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was called twice, and no one appeared on their behalf. The CIT(A) had previously rejected the assessee's contentions ex-parte due to continuous non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the substantive grounds of appeal on merits, and if the assessee's non-appearance warranted an ex-parte decision without addressing the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Hearing: 14.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

2017-2018 out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1020833405(1) dated 21.11.2019 in proceedings u/s.143(3) 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.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) 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. Smt. Swarnalatha could hardy dispute the clinching fact that the . Prime Marketing. CIT(A)'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, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee's instant appeal back to the CIT(A)-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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →