JAVED AKTHAR,POTTAKUZHI ROAD JUNCTION KALOO vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

PDF · subscribers
ITA 774/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without addressing the factual aspects as required by law. 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 against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 56(2) and 115BBE without properly dealing with the factual matrix.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by not dealing with the factual matrix and requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2),Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 250(6)

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: 19.08.2024Pronounced: 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- 24/1053642652(1) dated 09.06.2023 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 the Revenue that the CIT(A)/NFAC has passed exparte order confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making sections 56(2) and 115BBE additions without dealing with the relevant Javed Akthar factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of 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 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.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 56(2)

All 166 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →