KULATHUMKUZHIYIL MUHAMMED ASHRAF,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 622/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf .......... Appellant Kulathumkuzhiyil, Velloor, Kottayam 686501 [Pan: Bzvpa6849J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Act Was Filed For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information That The Appellant Received Interest Income From United India Insurance Company Ltd. Or Rs. 29,03,429/- During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 2 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf 31.03.2022. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 148 Nor U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Issued By The Ao Calling For Certain Information. In The Circumstances, The Ao Was Constrained To Pass Best Judgement Assessment By Bringing To Tax The Interest Income Of Rs. 29,03,429/- As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant.
For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)
…fe on road accident on 17.08.2022. It is submitted that the interest on compensation partake the character of compensation, which is not taxable placing reliance on the decision the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rupesh Rashmikant Shah v. UOI [2019] 417 ITR 169. However, the CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal exparte by taking into consideration the fact that the appellant failed to comply with the notice issued by the AO without entering into the merits of the addition made by the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival conte…
