BEENA VEERIAH REDDY,KOTTAYAM V. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, KOTTAYAM

ITA 578/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Beena Veeriah Reddy, an individual engaged in the retail garments business, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, which had dismissed her earlier appeal for non-prosecution. The original assessment by the National Faceless Centre included additions to her income for disallowed incentive expenses and business promotion expenses due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal considered the appellant's inability to respond to notices during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lack of proper representation as valid reasons to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772056 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R. KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH :: COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM& SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 578/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 BeenaVeeriah Reddy, .......... Appellant M/s. Seematti, K.K. Road, Kottayam, Kerala-686001 [PAN: ABOPT 2020 Q] vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-1 & TPS, Kottayam. Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax/NFAC, Delhi[for short, ‘CIT(A)’] dated 19.06.2025 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual, engaged in the business of retail garments. The return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 was filed on 15/02/2021 declaring income of Rs. 39,10,54,160/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Centre vide order dated Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 578/Coch/2025 Beena Veeriah Reddy 16/09/2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 40,09,93,806/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer (for short, ‘AO’) made addition by disallowing incentive expenses of Rs. 28,31,118/- for the alleged failure of the appellant to prove the expenditure by leading necessary evidence. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs. 47,54,958/- being the expenditure incurred on business promotion for want of evidence on record. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limini. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of Ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant could not respond to the hearing notices issued by the NFAC as the hearing notices were not received to the registered email of the appellant. He further submits that the assessment proceedings were taken up in Covid-19 pandemic, therefore proper representation could not be made. In these circumstances, he prayed for remand the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. 5. On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR has no serious objection for remanding the proceedings to the file of AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law. 6. Having heard rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that having regard to the circumstances which led to passing Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 578/Coch/2025 Beena Veeriah Reddy of ex-parte ordersby the lower authorities, it is a fit case to remand the matter back to the file of AO. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 26th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 26th August, 2025 vr/- 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 "