What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-compliance before the NFAC. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a 2-day delay, which was condoned. The original assessment order was passed ex-parte, and the assessee failed to appear before the NFAC due to unfamiliarity with the ITBA portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order and subsequent NFAC order should be set aside due to the assessee's inability to participate effectively in the proceedings.

Praveen Kumar Kamalamma… vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, A.R

For Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Hearing: 21.06.2023Pronounced: 21.06.2023

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 2.2.2023. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal.

There was a delay of 2 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition accompanied with an affidavit explaining reasons for delay in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. Considering the short delay of 2 days and also the reason explained by the assessee, we condone the delay of 2 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Praveen Kumar Kamalamma Chikkanarasimhaiah, Bangalore

Page 2 of 3 3. After hearing both the parties, in this case assessment order has been passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act without participation of the assessee on 26.12.2019. The assessee has carried the appeal before NFAC. The NFAC has given an opportunity to the assessee for hearing and the same was not complied by the assessee as below”

S.No. Notice issue date Date of compliance Response of (through ITBA) appellant 1. 11.03.2020 20.03.2020 No written submission 2. 05.08.2020 13.08.2020 filed in support 3. 29.01.2021 04.02.2021 of grounds of 4. 11.01.2023 17.01.2023 appeal. No and and request of 5. 18.01.2023 25.01.2023 adjournment made.

3.1 It was explained before us that assessee was not conversant with ITBA portal and as such assessee was not able to represent the case before NFAC. We find merit in the argument of the assessee’s counsel. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the entire issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration and at this stage, we refrain from going into the issue raised by the assessee on merit.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2023

Sd/- Sd/- (Beena Pillai) (Chandra Poojari) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 21st June, 2023. VG/SPS

Praveen Kumar Kamalamma Chikkanarasimhaiah, Bangalore

PRAVEEN KUMAR KAMALAMMA CHIKANARASIMHAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments