BANGALORE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 595/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 October 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) did not consider the documents submitted by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with directions to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2016-17. The assessee claims the CIT(Appeals) did not consider documents filed and passed an ex parte order without proper notice. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144 due to the assessee's non-representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred by not considering the assessee's documents and passing an ex parte order without proper notice. Whether the assessee should be given a chance to represent its case before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLIA, JUDIIAL MEMBER & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate &, Shri Tharun Kothari, CA
For Respondent: Shri Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 10.10.2023Pronounced: 10.10.2023

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal by the assessee is against DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054151707(1) dated 05.07.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] for the AY 2016-17.

2.

The sole issue raised in this appeal by the assessee during the course of argument is that the CIT(Appeals) has not accepted the documents filed by it and no notice was served to the assessee before passing the order. He submitted that the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act and also filed a paperbook containing pages 1 to 61 filed before the CIT(A)/AO and submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has ignored the same and passed the ex parte order without considering the submissions of the assessee. Therefore the ld. AR requested that a chance should be given to the assessee for representing its case before the Assessing Officer on the addition made of Rs.1,22,59,028.

3.

The ld. DR strongly objected to the request of the assessee and relied on the orders of lower authorities. He submitted that both the authorities gave sufficient opportunity to the assessee, however, the assessee did not represent which is clear from their orders and notices were sent @ e-mail address provided by the assessee.

4.

Considering the rival submissions, we note that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not represent before the AO, therefore the AO made addition to the gross receipts of Rs.1,22,59,028 in the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted documents at Sl.No.1 to 5 of the PB, however, the CIT(Appeals) has not considered the same. Considering the present facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we think it fit to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Accordingly, the AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents for substantiating its case and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. It is also directed that the assessee furnish the correct address / email address to the AO.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →