NEW GIRIJA JEWELLERS,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 654/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2006-07Bench: 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 back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. The assessee was given the responsibility to plead and prove all related facts within three effective opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC which confirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs. 2,47,700/- under Section 40(b) for excess remuneration. The CIT(A) failed to deal with the factual matrix and frame points of determination as required.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a valid ex-parte order without proper adjudication of facts and framing of points of determination. The adequacy of the CIT(A)'s order in dealing with the disallowance under Section 40(b).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(b),Section 250,Section 250(6)

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 Arun 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. 2006-07 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053982563(1) dated 27.06.2023 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 ex-parte order confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 40(b) disallowance of Rs. 2,47,700/- on account of excess remuneration claim without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a New Girija Jewellers 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.

Delay of 11 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 40(b)

All 428 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →