SHRI. RAMAIAH RAMACHANDRA,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TUMAKURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 908/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 December 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present his case. Since the assessment was completed under Section 144, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a senior citizen, failed to respond to notices from the CIT(A) due to a misunderstanding of e-proceedings and inadvertent non-communication to his tax consultant. Consequently, the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present his case before the AO when the CIT(A) appeal was decided ex-parte due to procedural oversight.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 20.12.2023Pronounced: 20.12.2023

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 22.09.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2.

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 from the Office of the CIT(A) (notices dated 04.11.2022, 10.07.2023 and 08.09.2023) for filing the written submissions. The learned AR submitted that assessee is a senior citizen and was not aware of the nuances of the new regime of income-tax e-proceedings and notices of hearing sent by the Office of the CIT(A) was inadvertently not communicated to his tax consultant. It was also submitted that not responding to the notice of hearing was not deliberate or intentional. 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.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

4.

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 04.11.2022, 10.07.2023 and 08.09.2023. The assessee is a senior citizen and was not aware of the new regime of income-tax e-proceedings and notices of hearing sent by the Office of the CIT(A) was inadvertently not communicated to his tax consultant. 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.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →