SHERAFUDHEEN THEYYAMPATTIL,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD 1, TIRUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 456/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2003-04Bench: 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) had passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the facts and following the procedure under Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2003-04 was filed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of Rs. 29 lakhs as unexplained income without properly dealing with the factual matrix.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by considering the factual matrix and following the prescribed procedure, or if the order was passed ex-parte without due diligence.

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 Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053176747(1) dated 25.05.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the CIT(A)/NFAC has passed exparte order confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making unexplained income addition(s) of Rs.29 lakhs in assessment dated 27.02.2015, without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. Sherafudheen Theyyampattil 250(6) of the 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 issue back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s afresh verification and adjudication with a rider that it shall be the assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the related facts within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →