ITA No.58/Coch/2024 & SA No.7/Coch/2024

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Sri.Manoj Pulimoottil Mathew, filed his income return on 5.08.2016. The assessment was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer added back a sum of Rs.28,69,000 as unexplained money under section 69 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal ex parte as the assessee did not respond to five hearing notices. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee argued that he did not appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) because he was not served with the hearing notices on his registered email address.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed ex parte?
• 2. Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be set aside?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Shri Thirumal Murugan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Circle 17(1), Chennai

• Avadhesh Kumar Panday Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Nilesh Ratnakar Deshpande vs. ACIT

  C'' Bench: Bangalore benchAY 2011-12Partly Allowed

• Shri Saneey Kumar Jain Vs ITO, Ward-43(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Chandra Gupta Basetty vs. Income Tax Officer

  Hyderabad bench

• Suryarajsinh Mahendrasinh Jadeja vs. The ITO, Ward -1(2)(2), Rajkot

  Rajkot bench