VELAYUDHANPARAMBIL KUMARAN RAJEEVAN,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON-CORP WARD 1(4), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 848/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 September 2024AY 2017-18Bench: 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 factual matrix and framing points of determination. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was filed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a valid ex-parte order without considering the facts and following the procedure laid down in Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

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 Joyel George, CA
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 16.08.2024Pronounced: 25.09.2024

Appellant by: Shri Joyel George, CA 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. 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060624782(1) dated 07.02.2024 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 68 addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Velayudhanparambil Kumran Rajeevan Act requiring him to frame points 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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →