SRI. KANNAGHATTA HONNEGOWDA VENKATESH,MANDYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MYSORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 758/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 December 2023AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deprecated the assessee's non-response but, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response to four notices. The assessee, a civil contractor with limited computer literacy, claimed to have missed email notices.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices should be set aside to provide an opportunity to the assessee on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. K. V. Srinivasa Prasad, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 05.12.2023Pronounced: 05.12.2023

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 14.07.2023, 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 CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The reasons for the CIT(A) for passing ex-parte order is on account of assessee not responding to the four notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A).

3.

The learned AR submitted before us that assessee has studied only upto nineth standard and is a civil contractor with various government departments. It was submitted that assessee was not computer literate and was not very familiar in opening emails. Consequently, the notice issued to his email address were not taken note of and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. It was submitted that assessee had represented before the AO which was not faceless assessment. It was submitted that assessee had produced the details of the source of cash deposit made during the demonetization period as being out of cash withdrawals of more than Rs.70 lakhs from 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 (the date of demonetization). The learned AR submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case.

4.

Learned DR submitted that assessee had not responded to any of the notices issued from the Office of CIT(A) and it is on account of his callous and non- cooperative attitude, the CIT(A) had to pass the impugned ex-parte order.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of CIT(A) has issued four notices to assessee directing him to file written submissions. Since there was no written submission filed in respect of the notices issued, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. We deprecate the behaviour of the assessee being very nonchalant in not responding to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that one more opportunity ought to be provided to the assessee. The learned AR had undertaken before us that he shall provide his email Id and shall represent the case of the assessee before the AO without fail. In light of the submissions of the learned AR, we restore the matter to the files of the AO. The assessee shall appear / file written submissions before the AO without fail and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →