NIRMALA DEVI MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR MADHAVIKUTTY,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial Member ITA No. 404/Coch/2023 & SA No. 70/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nirmala Devi Madhusoodhanan Income Tax Officer - 1(3) Nair, Madhavikutty, Legal Heir of Aayakar Bhavan K.S. Sukumaran Nair Kowdiar vs. Parvathy Nilayam, Sreekariam P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695017 Alathara, Trivandrum 695017 [PAN: AOFPK3021G] (Appellant) (Respondent)
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.
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).
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
2 ITA No. 404/Coch/2023 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.
On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
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.
Since we have remanded the matter back to the AO, the stay application becomes infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced on 27th September, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (Soundararajan K.) (Waseem Ahmed) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: 27th September, 2024 n.p.
3 ITA No. 404/Coch/2023 Nirmala Devi Madhusoodhanan Nair Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
