Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member
ITA No. 294/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)
Varappillykudi Abdulrahiman Income Tax Officer Shoukathali Ward -1 & TPS 1, Marhaba Agencies Mahima Tpowers vs. Cheruvattoor, Kothamangalam Temple bypass Road Ernakulam 686691 Thodupuzha 685584 [PAN: CZSPS7513K] (Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 315/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)
Income Tax Officer Varappillykudi Abdulrahiman Ward -1 & TPS Shoukathali Mahima Tpowers 1, Marhaba Agencies vs. Temple bypass Road Cheruvattoor, Kothamangalam Thodupuzha 685584 Ernakulam 686691 [PAN: CZSPS7513K] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri Joseph Markos, Advocate Revenue by: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024
O R D E R Per Bench These assessee’s and Revenue’s cross appeals ITA.Nosa.294 & 315/ Coch/2023, for A.Y. 2014-15, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre,
2 ITA No. 294/Coch/2023 Varappillykkui Abdulrahiman Shoukathali Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050313473(1) dated 02.03.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges at the outset that the sole substantive ground which arises for our apt adjudication is that of the correctness of section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs. 5,06,65,159/- made in the case assessment/reassessment dated 30.03.2022 as restricted o the extent of Rs. 3,58,88,558/- only in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. The Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 315/Coch/2023 also appears to have raised the issue of violation of rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 that the learned CIT(A) had admitted the assessee’s additional evidence without calling for a detailed remand report from the Assessing Officer.
Learned counsel at this stage has filed assessee’s reconciliation statement of the impugned cash deposits in a paper book running into 61 pages. He invites our attention to the reconciliation complied at pages 1 to 13 and states that he has no objection in case the Assessing Officer reexamine the matter in yet another effective innings.
That being the case, we are of the considered view that all other rival pleadings herein stand rendered academic once the foregoing reconciliation statement is restored back to the Assessing Officer with the consent of the parties. Ordered accordingly.
These appeals of the assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross-appeals ITA.Nos.294 & 315/Coch./2023 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
3 ITA No. 294/Coch/2023 Varappillykkui Abdulrahiman Shoukathali Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 23rd October, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin