INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR, KANNUR vs. PUDUCHERI RAGHAVAN VENUGOPAL, THALASSERY, KANNUR

2 ITA.Nos.141, 142, 143 & 147/COCH./2024 proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

It emerges during the course of hearing at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned CIT(A) has quashed the impugned assessment(s)/re- assessment(s) on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not followed the ratio of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 188 Taxman 113 (SC) i.e., for non-issuance of notice u/sec.143(2). There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee had not filed her return in furtherance to sec.148 notice(s); which in turn; could be put to scrutiny u/sec.143(2) of the Act. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) quashing the impugned assessment(s)/re-assessment(s) herein are not sustainable. Faced with this situation, we restore the Revenue’s instant identical four appeals back to the learned CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Delay of 60 days in filing the instant appeals is condoned as per Revenue’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.

These Revenue’s four appeals ITA.Nos.141, 142, 143 & 147/COCH./2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.