NARIGEMMAGARI REDDY BRAMHANANDA,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUNTAKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 515/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 November 2023AY 2021-20224 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no material to controvert the assessee's plea of improper notice service. Technicalities were set aside in favor of substantial justice, and the impugned order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2021-22. The assessee claimed that hearing notices for the first appeal were not properly served, leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when there was a lack of proper service of notice on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Hearing: 29/11/2023

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 27/07/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Narigemmagari Reddy Bramhananda (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2021-22, assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

At the outset, learned AR submitted that the hearing notices in the first appeal were served through e-mail ID on the auditor, who served the assessee nine years back and that is the reason why the assessee could not know the dates of hearing or the passing of the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Learned AR submitted that this is the reason why the assessee not only could not pursue the first appeal diligently, but also filed this appeal with a delay of 31 days. Learned AR, therefore, prayed that the assessee has a meritorious case, but it is only due to non-service of notice on the assessee to proper/correct address, he could not conduct the case diligently, and, therefore, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to put forth his case diligently on merits.

3.

Though the learned DR vehemently opposed grant of an opportunity to the assessee to conduct the case on merits, there is no material to controvert the fact pleaded by the assessee that there is no proper service of notice of the proceedings before the first appellate authority.

4.

I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. As stated above, the plea of the assessee is that there is no notice served properly on him during the first appellate proceedings and there is no material to convert the same. All the endeavour of these proceedings is to see that the correct tax lability of assessee is determined. When technicalities are pitted against the substantial justice, the latter must give way to the former. Since no vested rights could be pleaded in perpetuation of the ex parte orders, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for disposal according to law, after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

Grounds of appeal are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of November, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →