PREETHA S NAIR,KOLLAM V. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM

ITA 55/COCH/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ms. Preetha S. Nair, the proprietor of Nut Products Company, against the order of the Ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention arose from the Assistant Commissioner's decision to disallow a loss claimed on the sale of cashew kernels, which were allegedly sold to concerns owned by her relatives at values lower than the cost of production. The initial appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to the non-appearance of the assessee, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had previously complied with notices and appeared on various occasions, thus granting another opportunity to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32849 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ITA Nos. 37 to 49/Coch/2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRLY ALBERT; SNR
• Assessee Lawyers: P V HARIHARAN

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’-COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 55/Coch/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ms. Preetha S. Nair, Prop: Nut Products Company, Kochupilammoodu, Kollam – 691 001. Kerala. PAN: ABDPN1379H Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Kollam. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri P V Hariharan, CA Revenue by : Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR Date of Hearing : 01-10-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28-10-2024 ORDER PER BENCH This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi dated 28/11/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is doing the business of manufacturing and exporting cashew kernels and during the year, she declared a total income of Rs.12,52,440/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO had alleged that the assessee had sold the cashew kernels to concerns owned by her relatives at values lower than the cost of production and therefore disallowed the loss on such sale of kernels. Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 55/Coch/2024 As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the order of the AO is not correct since the reasoning given by the AO is not correct. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the same for the reason that the assessee had not appeared and provided any details. As against the said order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed by the assessee. 4. At the time of argument, the assessee filed a written submission and also enclosed order copies of the sister concern in ITA Nos. 37 to 49/Coch/2016 dated 03/02/2020 and prayed to allow the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. We have considered the grounds raised by the assessee and found that the appeal was first heard by the Ld.CIT(A) on 28/02/2018 and thereafter on 02/03/2020 at Trivandrum along with the appeals for 2009-10 and 2011-12 and in the another ground, the assessee submitted that she had duly complied with the notice dated 28/12/2021 but the Ld.CIT(A) had failed to look into the same. Therefore as seen from the said grounds, the assessee had also appeared on various occasions and also filed response to one notice dated 28/12/2021 and therefore we are of the view that one more opportunity is to be granted to the assessee to put forth their case on merits. 7. We have also perused the written submission and the copy of the order furnished by the assessee in which similar issue was considered by this Tribunal and we find that the Ld.CIT(A) had no occasion to consider the issue since he has passed an ex-parte order. Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 55/Coch/2024 8. We therefore thought it fit to remit the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to consider the issue afresh and also by considering the orders passed in respect of the sister concern. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 28th October, 2024. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cochin "