MANEKAL BHAGAVANJI,KOCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) NON CORPORATE (PRESENT), KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 223/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 September 2024AY 2006-07Bench: 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 addressing the factual matrix as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07 was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) without properly considering the facts.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by considering the factual matrix and framing points of determination, or if the order was passed ex-parte without due process.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),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 Madhusudanan, CA
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 14.08.2024Pronounced: 25.09.2024

Appellant by: Shri Madhusudanan, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 14.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 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 36(1)(iii) deduction disallowance without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereon. Faced with this Maneklal Bhagavanji situation, we deem it fit appropriate to restore the issue back to the CIT(A) for his afresh verification and adjudication with the 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.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →