MEHROTRA SANGEETHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 280/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-appearance, granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity as the matter was decided ex parte without merits. The appeal was remitted to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed lack of proper legal assistance and unawareness of procedures, but had engaged a consultant and sought adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits warrants a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-B”, BANGALORE

Before: Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM

Hearing: 17.05.2023Pronounced: 17.05.2023

O R D E R

Per George George K, JM :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 31.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018.

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that the order passed by the CIT(A) is an ex parte order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The CIT(A) had stated in the impugned order that various notices were issued and served on the assessee, which were not complied with by the assessee.

Smt.Mehrotra Sangeetha. 3. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had no proper legal assistance and was unaware of the income tax procedure. However, the assessee had engaged a tax consultant and filed adjournment application online seeking time to submit reply to the notices issued by the CIT(A). The learned AR prayed, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent the case.

4.

The learned Standing Counsel appeared for the Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A).

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had issued notices on three occasions and on all the date of hearing, the assessee did not represent her case. We strongly deprecate the non- appearance on the part of the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and equity, since the matter has been decided ex parte without deciding the issues on merits, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. The CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.

Smt.Mehrotra Sangeetha. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 17th day of May, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →