What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remand the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh consideration, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is granted to the assessee. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- per assessment year was imposed on the assessee.

The assessee's appeals were directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-15, Bangalore. The assessee contended that he could not represent his case before the CIT(A)/NFAC, and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo consideration due to the assessee not being granted a proper opportunity of hearing, and imposition of costs for the same.

N V Babu Reddy vs DCIT | ITAT Bangalore 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R

Hearing: 24.09.2025Pronounced: 25.09.2025

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-15, Bangalore and all are dated 17.02.2025 vide DIN No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073377476(1) for the 2014-15; vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/19633664785(1) for the AY 2015- 16; vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073377503(1) for the AY 2016-17; vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073377493(1) for the AY 2017-18 & vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073377511(1) for the AY 2018-19 respectively passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, to 1129/Bang/2025 N.V. Babu Reddy, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

The assessee has raised various grounds in all these appeals.

At the time of hearing, both parties fairly conceded that the issues involved in these appeals may be remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC since the Assessee could not represent his case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal by assuming that the assessee had nothing to say. Accordingly, we reject the adjournment application as we are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of Justice & fair play, it is appropriate to remand the issues in dispute in their entirety to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to consider the case afresh in accordance with the law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.

3.1 Further, while remitting the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we also consider it necessary to impose a token cost of Rs.5,000/- for each assessment year in appeal to the assessee owing to negligence shown in the statutory notices at the first appellate stage. The assessee shall deposit the total cost of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the Prime Minister Relief Fund and the receipt thereof shall be furnished before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. With these terms, the appeals of the assessee are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo consideration. It is ordered accordingly. to 1129/Bang/2025 N.V. Babu Reddy, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 4. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

N V BABU REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments