USHA VARMA,THRISSUR vs. ACIT , NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1012/COCH/2022Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 April 2024AY 2015-16Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Anil Kumar Dugar (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was neither maintainable nor liable to be adjudicated on merits. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee to withdraw her appeal before him, and therefore, the assessee could not be aggrieved by that order to prefer a second appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order. However, the assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was proceeded with ex parte. The ITAT noted that the appeal before it was not maintainable as it was against the assessment order, not the CIT(A)'s order, and the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee to withdraw her appeal before him.

What were the issues?

The maintainability of the appeal before the ITAT and whether the assessee was aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order allowing withdrawal of her appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Pronounced: 15.04.2024

Appellant by: ----- None ----- Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 15. 04.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 15.04.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the dismissal of her appeal contesting her assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 19.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)] vide his order dated 28.10.2022.

2.

None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing. This, despite due communication of the notices of hearing through the assessee’s registered email ID (i.e., as furnished for the purpose in Form 36, the memo of appeal before the Tribunal) for today instant, on 18.03.2024 and 03.04.2024, as had been the case on the previous occasions when the case came up for hearing, viz. 14.02.2024, 07.03.2024 and 11/10/2023, as well. In fact, the Tribunal was constrained to adopt this mode in view of the notices of hearing at the assessee’s stated address coming back unserved with the postal remarks “Addressee (AY : 2015-16) Usha Verma v. Asst. CIT left India”, with, further, the assessee not furnishing any alternate address and no POA/Vakalat on record. The hearing of the appeal was under the circumstances proceeded with ex parte the assessee-appellant.

3.

At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the order appealed against is not that by the first appellate authority, but the assessment order dated 19.12.2017. This stands further confirmed on a perusal of the Grounds of Appeal

(GoA) forming part of Form 36, whereby the assessee disputes the fair market value (FMV) of the capital asset sold as on 01.04.1981, i.e., the issue on merits, being the subject matter of assessment. Before the first appellate authority, however, though the assessee presumably raised the issues being agitated before us – inasmuch as Form 35 (memo of appeal before the first appellate authority) is not accompanied by both, the Statement of Facts (SoF) and GoA, made a prayer for closure of the appeal in view of the rectification order passed in her favour. Copy of the same (dated 14.09.2021) is on record as an accompaniment to the order by the first appellate authority. Per the same, the assessee, on moving the Assessing Officer (AO) in its respect, stands allowed credit for TDS for an additional sum of Rs.1,13,51,554. The ld. CIT(A) accepting the assessee’s request, allowed the said withdrawal, dismissing her appeal for statistical purposes. The relevant part of his order reads as under:

2. In response to the notice u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, written submission in support of the grounds of appeal received through ITBA and of the same reproduced as under: - “Since the rectification order was passed in my favour already, please consider this appeal closed. Relevant documents and request letter attached herewith.”

3. Considering the request and written submission, the appeal is allowed to be withdrawn and treated as dismissed for statistical purpose. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

4. We have heard the party before us, and perused the material on record. 4.1 We are completely at loss to understand the instant appeal. To begin with, it continues to be defective inasmuch as Form 35, absence of which was communicated by the Registry vide defect memo dated 30.12.2022, duly completed, i.e., including 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →