VELAYUDHANPARAMBIL KUMARAN RAJEEVAN,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON-CORP WARD 1(4), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
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.
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.
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
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026