ALEYAMMA ANTONY,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 491/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2014-15Bench: 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) passed an ex-parte order without addressing the factual matrix and framing points of determination. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits.

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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,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: Ms. K. Parvathy Ammal, CA
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. 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1052714541(1) dated 10.05.202e in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both the 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 passed exparte order confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 68 addition on account of unexplained cash deposits without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act Aleyamma Antony 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 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.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →