SARASWATHIBHAVAN KESAVA PILLAI JYOTHI,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , TRIVANDRUM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, granting three effective opportunities to the assessee. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the assessee had filed detailed evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, and the appeals were proceeded ex parte. The Assessing Officer had made best judgment assessments due to the assessee's non-cooperation, including undeclared salary and interest income.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) should have provided more opportunities to the assessee despite non-cooperation, and if the evidence filed by the assessee warranted a fresh consideration.
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
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Appellant by : ---- None --- Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s twin appeals in for the assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 arise against two separate orders of the CIT / NFAC, DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046065029(1) & 1046065113, both dated 28.09.2022, passed u/s.250of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee.
Learned Departmental Representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer has -971/Coch/2022. Sri.Saraswathibhavan Kesava Pillai Jyothi. framed both the impugned assessments assessing actual salary received as well as interest income derived in the relevant previous years, but not declared for the purpose of assessment, respectively. She further submits that the Assessing Officer had rightly framed section 144 “Best judgment” u/s. 144 on account of assessee’s non-cooperation. We notice in the factual backdrop of the case that the assessee had not only filed its detailed evidence before the CIT(A) but also placed the same before us in both these case files. That being the case, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals raising identical submissions back to the CIT(A) for afresh appropriate decision as per law after allowing three effective opportunities at the taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only.
These assessee’s twin appeals and 972/Coch/2022 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective files.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026