JINTO CHETTIYAKUNNEL THOMAS,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

ITA 2420/BANG/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Jinto Chettiyakunnel Thomas against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The appellant challenged the assessment order and the interpretation of Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(A). The primary contention was the alleged disregard of natural justice and misinterpretation of legal provisions by the lower authorities. The Tribunal also addressed a stay application related to the collection of outstanding dues, which was dismissed, leading to the expedited hearing of the main appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471099 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHINI BASEGANNI
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRATH SINGH
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. No. 78/Bang/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 2420/Bang/2024) & ITA No. 2420/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Jinto Chettiyakunnel Thomas, T1-304, Tower-1 Oceanus Vista, Kasavanahalli, Bangalore – 560 035. PAN: ARPPT1609N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4 (1)(3), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Kirath Singh, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 27-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04-04-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 24/10/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2016-17 and raised the following grounds: “1. The order of the lower authorities is contrary to facts, devoid of merits, against the law, and in total disregard of natural justice and the well-laid-down principles. Page 2 of 3 S.A. No. 78/Bang/2024 & ITA No. 2420/Bang/2024 2. The assessment order was passed in total disregard of the pieces of evidence adduced before the assessing authority. 3. The CIT(A), NFAC has misinterpreted the provisions of S. 249(4)(b) and the order is in total disregard of the law as laid down by the courts. Hence, the order of the first appellate authority may be set aside and the matter decided on merits. 4. The appellant and his wife have sufficient sources for the purchase of the property as given in the statement of facts submitted along with these grounds. 5. The appellants crave leave to alter, add to and/or amend the aforesaid grounds. 6. For these and any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant pleads that the Order of the AA in appeal may be set aside with a direction to him to complete the assessment by deleting the addition and accepting the return and books of account as it is.” 2. The assessee also filed a stay application in S.A. No. 78/Bang/2024 seeking the stay of collection of the outstanding dues and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not admitted the appeal as no admitted tax has been paid. Since the appeal has not been admitted by the Ld.CIT(A), we deem it fit to decide the main appeal out of turn and dismissed the stay application and proceed to take up the main appeal for hearing with the consent of both the parties. 3. At the time of deciding the stay petition on 27/12/2024, this Tribunal had given the following order in respect of the Appeal in the order sheet. “At the time of hearing of the Stay Petition it was found that stay is applied for the reason that CIT (A) has not admitted the appeal of assessee, as no admitted tax has been has been deposited. As per the assessee, only income is salary of Rs.3,33,000/- and therefore there is no admitted tax and advance tax is not payable. After hearing both the parties, Stay Petition was dismissed and assessee's appeal is restored back to CIT(A), where assessee is directed to show what is admitted tax, pay the Page 3 of 3 S.A. No. 78/Bang/2024 & ITA No. 2420/Bang/2024 same, if it is payable, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to admit the appeal, if admitted tax is paid. In view of the above appeal is also allowed for statistical purpose. Hence appeal is also disposed off.” 4. In view of the above said order passed by this Tribunal on 27/12/2024, we are of the view that no further order is required. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Stay Application is also dismissed in view of the order passed on 27/12/2024. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice - President Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 04th April, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "