KUTHUPARAMBA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 311/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Kuthuparamba Service Co-Operative ..….……….Appellant Bank, Kuthuparamba , Kannur District - 670643 [Pan:Aabak3157C] Vs. Ito Ward 1 & Tps, Kanniur . ….. …..Respondent Appellant By: Shri. Arun Raj, Adv Respondent By Smt . Leena Lal, Snr,Ar Date Of Hearing: 05 .06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 140(4B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961Dated 18.06.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Against The Assessment Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(Appeals), Nfac. However, The Assessee Was Not Served Any Notice Of Hearing Nor A Copy Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac. Further, No Alert Or Sms Notification Was Received
For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj, Adv
Section 144Section 270A
Section 270A of the Act. The assessee came to know that the CIT(A), NFAC had dismissed the appeal ex parte, i.e., without giving an opportunity of hearing.
3. As a result, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT after a delay of 249 days, along with a petition for condonation of delay. The assessee contended that the delay
