`M/S ROYEL MEDICAL TRUST.,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD -3, PALAKKAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 835/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 September 2024Bench: 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 properly dealing with the facts and without framing points of determination as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 was against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B for alleged undisclosed investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a valid ex-parte order by not dealing with the factual matrix and points of determination. Whether the proceedings before the CIT(A) were in accordance with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,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 Appellant: Shri Akhil Philip, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 16.08.2024Pronounced: 25.09.2024

Appellant by: Shri Akhil Philip, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 16.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056381762(1) dated 21.09.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both 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 exparte order confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 69B addition on account of the alleged undisclosed investment, without dealing with the relevant factual matrix without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points Royal Medical Trust of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon. Faced with this situation, we deem it fit appropriate to restore this assessee’s appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh verification and adjudication with a rider that it shall be the assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →