THANIKKAMATTATHIL CHACKO MANI,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1 , ALUVA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 579/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: 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) had failed to deal with the relevant facts and frame points of determination. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was filed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) had confirmed the Assessing Officer's order without addressing the factual matrix as required by law.

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 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 Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1043554670(1) dated 24.06.2022 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 the Revenue side that the CIT(A)/NFAC has passed exparte order confirming the Assessing Officer’s order without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of Thanikkamattathil Chacko Mani 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 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.

Delay of 346 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →