SRI. GURUKULA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA,TIPTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee and there are common issues (deduction under section 80P of the Act) raised in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.

At the very outset, I notice that for Assessment Year 2014-15, assessment has been completed on a best judgment basis under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and for Assessment Year 2017-18 under section 143(3) of the Act. For both the Assessment Years, the CIT(A)’s orders are ex-parte since assessee did not respond to the notices sent from the Office of the CIT(A).

The learned AR submitted that the assessee had not received any notices from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Consequent to the same, the assessee could not represent the case before the CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter may be restored to the AO as a last chance. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the assessee had not co-operated with the Revenue and the same has resulted in the best judgment assessment for Assessment Year 2014-15; and for both the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2017-18, the assessee did not make any written submissions nor filed an adjournment application for the various hearing dates issued from the Office of the CIT(A). Therefore, it was submitted that the ITAT ought not interfere with the order of the CIT(A) for both the Assessment Years i.e., Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2017-18.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. For Assessment Year 2014-15, three notices were sent from the Office of the CIT(A) to the assessee’s email ID. However, there was no response to the same. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. Similarly, for Assessment Year 2017-18, three notices were sent to the assessee’s email ID. However, since there was no response to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

I strongly deprecate the action of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the Office of the AO and CIT(A). However, as a last chance, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, the issue raised in Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2017-18 are restored to the files of the AO. Assessee is directed to co-operative with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

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