NIRMALA DEVI MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR MADHAVIKUTTY,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 404/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 September 2024AY 2011-12Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Revenue's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the AO's order as the assessee failed to re-present her case. The assessee claimed costs for property improvement but failed to furnish necessary details.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate claims for property improvement costs, given the failure to provide details and attend hearings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Pathmanathan K.V., Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 26.09.2024Pronounced: 27.09.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 404/Coch/2023
SA No. 70/Coch/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Appellant by: Shri Pathmanathan K.V., Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 26.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 27.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.03.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee also filed stay application S.A. No. 70/Coch/2023 seeking stay on collection of outstanding demand of Rs.25,84,090/- only.

2.

At the outset we note that the learned CIT(A) has issued various notices to the assessee to re-present her case on various dates, but the assessee could not avail the same. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer (AO).

3.

At the time of hearing the learned A.R. before us submitted that the assessee has incurred cost on improvement of the impugned property which has not been Nirmala Devi Madhusoodhanan Nair allowed by the Revenue authorities. The learned A.R. further fairly admitted that necessary details were also not furnished in support of the cost incurred towards improvement of the land. However, the learned A.R. assured to furnish the necessary details if one more opportunity is given to the assessee. The learned A.R. further prayed to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the assessee could not substantiate the claim for the cost of improvement during the appellate proceedings and further the assurance made by the learned A.R. of the assessee to make necessary compliance, we, in the interest of justice and fair play, inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee for representing her case before the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

Since we have remanded the matter back to the AO, the stay application becomes infructuous.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →