What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee, a small-time trader, failed to appear before the CIT(A) and AO due to unfamiliarity with e-assessment proceedings and not receiving notices. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case when the appeal was decided ex-parte due to procedural reasons.

Sri Bangaraswami Pravin Kumar… vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - A” : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA

For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Hearing: 20.12.2023Pronounced: 20.12.2023

Per George George K, Vice President:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 16.10.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

At the very outset, I notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee did not respond to notices issued on 22.01.2021, 06.04.2022 and 11.09.2023 from the Office of the CIT(A) for filing the written submissions. The reasons stated by the assessee for not appearing before CIT(A) and AO are as follows:

“The appellant is a smalltime trader dealing in Agricultural equipment such as GI Pipes, Plastic Pipes, drip irrigation sprinkler, manual pesticides etc. The appellant is not very educated and resides in Shimoga Town. The appellant was unaware of the assessment proceedings taken up in his case since none of the notices were received physically. The appellant is not very conversant with technology and did not regularly check his e-mails. Furthermore, the appellant was not familiar with the newly introduced e- assessment scheme and conduct of faceless appeals before the CIT[A]. The appellant had received a hearing notice dated 22/01/2021 in response to which, the appellant sought for adjournment on account of his unfamiliarity with the faceless proceedings and on account of his accountant leaving his services. The subsequent notices issued by the learned CIT[A], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi went unobserved in as much as the same was only issued on the e-mail Id of the appellant which was not regularly used. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant was unable to represent his case before the learned AO and the learned CIT[A].”

3. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case before the AO, since the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act.

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits since the assessee has not responded to the notices issued on 22.01.2021, 06.04.2022 and 11.09.2023. In response to the notice issued on 22.01.2021, assessee had sought for more time for filing written submissions. In the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to present his case. In the instant case, since the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act, I deem it appropriate to remit the issue raised on merits to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. With the aforesaid observations, I restore the matter to the files of the AO.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

SRI BANGARASWAMI PRAVIN KUMAR,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIVAMOGGA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments