ANGEL CABS,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1463/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 June 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing any order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, despite the assessee claiming to have filed submissions. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not consider their submissions and dismissed the appeal without proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the assessee's submissions and providing a proper hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 143(2),Section 40A(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Ms. Tarini N.V. Advocate

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 30.01.2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. The impugned assessment order dated, 22-12-2016 u/s 143(3) is passed in haste violating the principles of natural justice and without appreciating the material facts on record and therefore, liable to be set aside as void. Page 1 of 4

ITA No.:1463/Bang/2026

2.

The learned CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal: (i). On the ground of non-prosecution contrary to the material evidence on record, and; (ii). Without providing an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing, even though a specific prayer was before him. 3. The Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated, 31-08-2015 issued by the ITO, Ward 4(3)(3), Bangalore is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 4. The impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) dated, 22-12-2016 passed under the seal & signature of CIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore is bad in law and liable to be cancelled. 5. The learned AO erred in making addition of Rs.1,46,54,086/- invoking section 40A(3) of the Act. 6. The learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The learned AO erred in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

3.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) at the outset submitted that the appeal by the assessee was initially listed for hearing before the learned CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru, before its migration to the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The learned AR submitted that during the physical hearing, the assessee filed its submissions. It was further submitted that after migration of the appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre, the assessee again filed its submissions. However, none of these submissions was taken into consideration by the learned CIT(A), and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned AR by referring to Para 7 of the impugned order submitted that the learned CIT(A), on one hand, recorded a finding that the assessee has not complied with any of the hearing notices issued from time to time during the entire appellate

Page 2 of 4

ITA No.:1463/Bang/2026

proceedings, and on the other hand, has dealt with one of the decisions relied upon by the assessee in its submissions.

4.

Having considered the submissions and in view of the facts and circumstances as noted in the following paragraph, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after consideration of the submission filed by the assessee. Since the matter is restored for consideration afresh, the assessee shall be at liberty to furnish any other submission in support of its claim before the learned CIT(A). Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore,

Dated, the 22nd June, 2026. *VM*

Page 3 of 4

ITA No.:1463/Bang/2026

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A)

By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT,Bangalore

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →