SHRI. HARADANAHALLI NARASIMHEGOWADA VIJAY,K K NAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 645/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 November 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the files of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case, considering the email ID update and in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee claimed that notices were sent to an old email ID, and a new one was updated prior to the notices being sent.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte when the assessee had updated their contact information and claimed non-receipt of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 07.11.2023Pronounced: 07.11.2023

O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 07.07.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.

2.

At the very outset, we notice that the appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was dismissed ex-parte since there was no response to the notices issued. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had updated his new email ID on 01.03.2023. However, the notices were sent to the email ID which was previously mentioned. The dashboard evidencing the updation of the new email ID on 01.03.2023 has been placed on record. The learned AR submitted that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to represent his case before the CIT(A).

3.

Learned DR supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The appeal of the assessee was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) for the reason that there was no compliance to the notices issued from the Office of the FAA. Assessee had placed on record the updation of his email ID w.e.f. 01.03.2023. It is stated that the notices were issued to the email ID that was mentioned earlier. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present his case. Accordingly, the issue raised in this appeal is restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →