RAJESH MATHEW,ERNAKULAM V. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS ALUVA, ALUVA

ITA 293/COCH/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Rajesh Mathew against the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee, a civil contractor, initially filed a return of income which was accepted by the AO under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. However, the PCIT, Kochi, under section 263, set aside this order, leading to a fresh assessment where cash deposits were treated as unexplained under section 68. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte due to the non-appearance of the assessee, which was later attributed to oversight by the staff of the firm where the assessee is a partner. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471745 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL; SNR
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 143(3); 263; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 293/Coch/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Rajesh Mathew, Cherumattathil House, Pallikavu Road, Perumballoor P.O., Muvattupuzha, Kerala – 686 673. PAN: AEAPM0644N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 & TPS, Aluva. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 19-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11-03-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the ex-parte order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 09/02/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a civil contractor and he filed the return of income on 28/02/2017. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny and assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 18/12/2018 in which the AO accepted the returned income. Thereafter, the PCIT, Kochi under the power Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 293/Coch/2024 vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act had set aside the order of the AO and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. Thereafter the AO issued various notices for which the assessee filed their replies and the AO had made an assessment u/s. 144 of the Act in which the cash deposits were treated as unexplained cash u/s. 68 of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte since the assessee had not appeared to the notices issued on various dates. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of argument, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed replies to the first two notices and sought for an adjournment. But unfortunately, for the balance two notices, the appellant was not informed about the same by the staff members of the firm in which the assessee is a partner. The Ld.AR submitted that the staff of the firm would view the official matters and thereafter if any notices were seen by the staff, they will automatically take it to the knowledge of the auditor for taking further action. When the first two notices were noticed by the staff, it was brought to the notice of the auditor and therefore adjournment petitions were filed in time. The Ld.AR further submitted that, unfortunately the last two notices were not noticed by the staff and therefore no response was filed to the same. The Ld.AR submitted that the non-response by the assessee was not on the fault of him and therefore prayed to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR not appeared and therefore we are ve deciding the appeal based on the materials available including the grounds of appeal. 5. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 293/Coch/2024 6. We have heard the arguments of the Ld DR and perused the materials available on record. 7. We have considered the reasons stated by the assessee and found that for the first 2 notices, proper response was made by the assessee. But unfortunately, for the last two notices, no proper response was filed because of the mistakes committed by his staff members. Even though the assessee had demonstrated before us that he is having a prima facie case in his favour but unfortunately we were not in a position to consider the said submissions since the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. 8. In view of the above said peculiar facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on merits and also after hearing the assessee in person. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated, the 11th March, 2025. /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 "