What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case after proper notice at their correct address.

The assessee did not receive notices from the Assessing Officer as they were affixed at a wrong address. The assessee also claimed insufficient opportunity before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case due to incorrect service of notices and insufficient opportunity before the appellate authority.

Ramesh Babu Segu vs ITO | ITAT Hyderabad 2023

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani

For Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Hearing: 22.02.2023Pronounced: 22.02.2023

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M : Aggrieved by the separate order(s) dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Ramesh Babu Segu (“the assessee”) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, assessee preferred these appeals.

At the outset, it is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessee has not received any notices from the learned Assessing Officer because the notices were affixed at a wrong address that was available with the bank, and, therefore, the assessee does not know about the reopening of the assessment. Ld. AR further submitted that for valid reasons the assessee sought adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A), but unfortunately, the Ld. CIT(A) did not give sufficient opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the appeals with reference to the material available on record. In these circumstances, assessee sought an opportunity to get the matters disposed of on merits.

Though, the Ld. DR opposed the request of the assessee for grant of an opportunity, the fact remains that the notices issued by the learned Assessing Officer were affixed at the address that was available with the bank and there is no dispute that such notices were not issued to the address where the assessee has been presently residing.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the case. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for affording an opportunity to the assessee by serving the notice at the address of the assessee given in form No. 36, namely, Ramesh Babu Segu, plot No. 78, road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500024. We make it clear that it is the last and final opportunity to the assessee to prosecute in these cases diligently.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2023.

RAMESH BABU SEGU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments