GIJU PURAPADATHIL MATHAI,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC had passed an ex-parte order without properly dealing with the factual matrix and framing points of determination. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was filed after a significant delay, which was condoned. The CIT(A)/NFAC had passed an ex-parte order confirming an addition of unexplained income.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC properly adjudicated the appeal by considering the factual matrix and framing points of determination before passing an ex-parte order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
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/250/2021- 22/1035054788(1) dated 24.08.2021 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
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 section 69 unexplained income addition without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame Giju Purapadathil Mathai 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 Assessing Officer for his afresh verification and adjudication with the 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.
Delay of 401 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
