ABDULLAH ABOOBECKER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 660/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Abdullah Aboobeeker, the appellant, who did not file a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which led to an assessment of unexplained cash deposits in the appellant's bank account, totaling Rs. 87,48,750. The appellant contested the assessment, arguing that the notice period was less than the required seven days and that the ITO did not address the objections raised. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT found procedural lapses in the handling of the appellant's objections and the notice period, necessitating a remand to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785143 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V.M.VEERAMANI
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA No. 660/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdullah Aboobeeker .......... Appellant Parppidam Priyadarshini Nagar, Mancha P.O. Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram 695541 [PAN: AOCPA6169A] vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Thiruvananthapuram ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 27.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2016-17. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act on 08.03.2023 directing the appellant to file response on or before 14.04.2023 and the order u/s. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 660/Coch/2025 Abdullah Aboobeeker 148A(d) was passed on 29.03.2023 and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29.03.2023. Subsequently, the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 on 28.03.2024 at a total income of Rs. 87,48,750/- treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) contested that the order passed u/s. 148A(b) is illegal as the appellant was given a period less than 7 days to respond to the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and the objections filed by the appellant were not disposed of by the AO. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The appellant had took a specific plea that the order passed u/s. 148A(d) is illegal, inasmuch as, the appellant was not afforded clear period 7 days to respond to the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and also took the plea that the AO had failed to dispose of the objections filed before passing the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate these ground of appeal. Since these grounds of appeal go to the very root of the matter, we are of the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 660/Coch/2025 Abdullah Aboobeeker considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 31st October, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "