CHIRAMAL KUNJAVOO CHAKUNNY GEORGE,TRICHUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 587/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2015-16Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s action of restoring the deduction claim to the AO was not sustainable due to statutory amendments. The Tribunal also noted that additional submissions by the assessee were not adjudicated on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 was against the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had restored the assessee's Section 54F deduction claim to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) had the power to restore a deduction claim to the AO. Whether additional submissions made by the assessee were properly considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 251(1)(a),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 S. Anil Kumar, 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. 2015-16 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053686304(1) dated 13.06.2023 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 from a perusal of the CIT(A)/NFAC lower appellate discussion in para 5.3.2 that he has restored the assessee’s section 54F deduction claim to the Assessing Officer which is no more sustainable in light of the statutory Chiramal Kunjavoo Chakunny George amendment in section 251(1)(a) w.e.f. 01.06.2001 as the corresponding statutory expression ‘he may set aside’ stands omitted. Learned counsel further submits that the assessee has filed his additional submissions before the CIT(A) in light of Goetze (India) Ltd. v CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)] as well which has not been adjudicated on merits.

3.

Be that as it may, once we restore the assessee’s instant case back to the Assessing Officer, we make it clear that the taxpayer shall indeed be at liberty to plead and prove all the facts within three effective opportunities of hearing at his own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

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

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →