SUJITH SREENIVASAN KAKKANAT,CHEMBUKAVU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present their case. The assessee bears the onus to plead and prove all relevant facts.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to an ex-parte order. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not adjudicate the substantive grounds of appeal on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits when the assessee failed to appear, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action.
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
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.43 and 44/ COCH./2024, for assessment years 2016-2017 & 2017-2018, arise against the CIT(A), Kochi-3, Kochi’s as many DIN & Order nos.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1058108697(1), dated 21.11.2023, in proceedings u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1971 (in short the "Act").
2 ITA.Nos.43 & 44/COCH./2024 Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A), Kochi-3, has noted that despite numerous opportunities given, the assessee did not appear and therefore, he passed the impugned order under challenge. Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the learned CIT(A)’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec. 250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeals back to the CIT(A)-3, Kochi for his afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.43 and 44/ 3. COCH./ 2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
3 ITA.Nos.43 & 44/COCH./2024 Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.08.2024.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Arun Aloysius Barnes vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 14 Oct 2026