OJIN BAKERS & RESTAURANT,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 338/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the appeal as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh verification and adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) stated there was no dispute regarding turnover but failed to address the factual matrix or frame points of determination.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by failing to deal with the factual matrix and frame points of determination as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 16.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 243/1050900698(1) dated 77.03.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the assessee’s appeal stating that there is no dispute between the appellant and the Assessing Officer with regard to turnover without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Ojin Bakes & Restaurant Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereon. Faced with this situation, we deem it fit appropriate to restore the instant issue back to the CIT(A) for his afresh verification and adjudication with a rider that it shall be the assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →