AVANZE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the entire issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after imposing a token cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee for negligence.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to represent its case before the CIT(A)/NFAC despite multiple opportunities. The assessee's AR requested another opportunity, and the DR suggested levying costs for negligence.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A)/NFAC, and if so, with what conditions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 11.06.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076928858(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
ITA No.1773/Bang/2025 Avanze Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 2 of 5
ITA No.1773/Bang/2025 Avanze Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 3 of 5
ITA No.1773/Bang/2025 Avanze Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 4 of 5 3. Before us both the parties fairly conceded that assesse could not represent its case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly the ld. A.R. of the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. D.R. although fairly conceded that assessee could not represent its case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, submitted that some cost may be levied owing to the negligence shown by the assessee before the first appellate authority.
3.1 On perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we observed that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had provided 3 numbers of opportunities to the assessee to make its submission in support of the grounds of appeal, however, the assessee did not file any submissions/response before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law.
3.2 While remitting the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we also consider it necessary to impose a token cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the assessee in aggregate owing to the negligence shown to the statutory notices before the first appellate authority. The assessee shall deposit the cost warranted in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund within 90 days from the date of this order and the receipt thereof shall be furnished before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. With these terms, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents/ records/ submissions/ information in support of its claim. We make it clear
ITA No.1773/Bang/2025 Avanze Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 5 of 5 that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Keshav Dubey) Vice President Judicial Member
Bangalore, Dated 30th June, 2026. VG/SPS
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026