RAJADHANI JEWELLERS,WAYANAD V. ITO, WARD 1, KALPETTA

SA 45/COCH/2025

AI Insights

This case involves Rajadhani Jewellers, the appellant, contesting an ex parte order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2018-2019. The appeal was initially delayed by 25 days, for which the assessee provided an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The core issue arose from the non-receipt of hearing notices by the assessee, leading to an ex parte decision. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315548 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN RAJ S
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K, Vice-President & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.260/Coch/2025 :Asst.Year 2018-2019 & SA No.45/Coch/2025 Rajadhani Jewellers Kozhikode road Mananthavady Wayanad – 670 645. PAN : AAIFM9009K. v. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 Kalpetta. (Appellant /Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Hearing :16.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice-President : This appeal, along with stay petition, at the instance of assessee are directed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] dated 07.01.2025 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2018-2019. 2. There is a delay of 25 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay supported by an affidavit stating therein the reason for belated filing of the appeal. ITA No.260 & SA 45/Coch/2025. Rajadhani Jewellers. 2 2.1 We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. We are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay of 25 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte order, since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices issued from the office of the CIT(A) nor from the office of the Assessing Officer. The learned A.R. submitted that the notices stated to have been sent from the office of the CIT(A) has not been served on the assessee, except one, which the assessee sought for adjournment. It is prayed that in the interest of natural justice and equity the matter may be restored to the files of the AO. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the both the CIT(A)'s order and the AO’s order are ex parte orders, since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices nor filed written submissions. In the interest of justice and equity, we restore the appeal to the file of the AO for disposal of the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is ITA No.260 & SA 45/Coch/2025. Rajadhani Jewellers. 3 directed to cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly. 6. Since the corresponding appeal is disposed of, the stay becomes infructuous, and accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 16th day of May, 2025. Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Sd/- (George George K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Cochin; Dated : 16th May, 2025. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Cochin. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin "