SMT. SOBHANAKUMARI,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 577/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the facts as required by section 250(6). Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was filed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,26,99,999/- under section 69A without properly addressing the factual matrix.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a valid ex-parte order without considering the factual matrix and following the procedure laid down in Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., Advocate
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. 2013-14 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053087526(1) dated 23.05.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both parties at length. 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 69A addition of Rs.1,26,99,999/- without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame Sobhanakumari 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 in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

3.

Delay of 12 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.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →