MR.MONI MANIYAT MATHEW,KOTHAMANGALAM vs. THE ITO, THODUPUZHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 544/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove all related facts within three effective opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 78,94,841/- on account of alleged lands sale/purchase business. The assessee disputed the cost of acquisition for his share of the lands.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct determination of the cost of acquisition for the assessee's share in the lands sold/purchased, which led to a business addition.

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. 2016-17 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053116990(1) dated 24.05.2023 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 herein has upheld the Assessing Officer’s action making business addition of Rs.78,94,841/- as arising from assessee’s alleged plunge in Moni Maniyat Mathew lands’ sale/purchase business. The Revenue side could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the assessee herein only disputes the cost of acquisition/purchase price of the said lands as Rs.1,91,24,000/- for his share coming to Rs.134.976 cents. That being the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant limited grievance to the Assessing Officer 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 related 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 →