MUBAISE PARAYIL,IRITTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, KANNUR, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 383/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 July 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of substantial justice, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and submit supporting documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file its return of income. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings upon receiving information of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. Despite notices, the assessee did not comply, leading to an ex parte assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case before the appellate authority due to non-receipt of notices and ex parte orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SONJOY SARMA

BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mubaise Parayil………….…………………...………………..…..….……….Appellant Elambayil House, Naduvanad, P.O Irritty, Kannur District, Kannur, Kerala – 670702. [PAN:CVHPM0274Q] vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kannur………..……….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing: June 09, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 31, 2025 ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)] dated 10.01.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 70 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee did not file its return of income for the A.Y 2018-19.The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated

Mubaise Parayil reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148, upon receipt of information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,12,97,550/- in its bank account with South Indian Bank, which had not been disclosed to the Income Tax Department. Despite issuance of notices under sections 148, 142(1) of the Act, the assessee did not comply. Further, notice under section 133(6) was issued to the South Indian Bank to collect relevant bank information. Based on the available records and non-compliance by the assessee, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment under section147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits of Rs.1,12,97,550/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee.

4.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), but again failed to comply with the notices issued. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order upholding the assessment made by the AO.

5.

The primary contention of the assessee before us is that due to non-receipt of notice issued in portal, it could not represent its case before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). It is prayed that an opportunity be granted to properly explain the nature of cash deposits and furnish relevant supporting documents.

6.

The learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the matter being remanded back, though he submitted that the assessee had a history of non-compliance.

7.

We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. However, in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent its case and submit

Mubaise Parayil supporting evidence Accordingly, we deem it fit to restore the entire matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to file necessary documents to substantiate its case.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

31st July, 2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →