SMT. SHIVAMMA,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), MYSORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 910/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 December 2023AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case due to her age, illiteracy, and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order. The AO is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee claims the sustained long-term capital gains on agricultural land were on ancestral property belonging to her deceased husband's joint family, not her individually.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case.

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 - C” : 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:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 05.10.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2007-08.

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 on 04.03.2020 and 04.09.2020 from the Office of the CIT(A) for filing the written submissions. The learned AR submitted CIT(A) has erred in sustaining Rs.34,04,572/- as long-term capital gains on the transfer of agricultural land (ancestral property) and the agricultural land belonged to the joint family of the deceased husband of the assessee and not to the assessee individually. It is also submitted that assessee is aged and illiterate. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent her 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 04.03.2020 and 04.09.2020. Assessee is a senior citizen and illiterate. 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 her 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 →