HOTEL MALABAR REGENCY,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEYAssessment Year: 2018-19
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)–2, Panaji, vide order dated 19/12/2024 in DIN No.
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071379130(1) for the assessment year
2018-19. Page 2 of 4
.
2. At the outset, it was noticed that the learned CIT(A) issued two notices to the assessee intimating the date of hearing. These two notices were issued within a span of 15 days, i.e., 26 November 2024
and 6 December 2024, whereas the appeal was instituted by the assessee on 23 October 2021. It is an admitted fact that there was no response by the assessee to such notices. The receipt of the notices was not disputed by the learned counsel for the assessee. It was submitted by the assessee that the notices received were duly communicated to the chartered accountant. The chartered accountant was advised to seek adjournment as the group matters were also coming up for hearing on the same issue. However, the tax consultant failed to seek the adjournment on the date of hearing. The tax consultant also failed to move the application for clubbing the appeal. Nevertheless, the learned counsel submitted that, in the interest of justice, one more notice should have been issued by the learned CIT(A) before dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The learned AR prayed that one more opportunity be extended to the assessee to represent the case. He assured that the assessee will make the necessary compliance.
On the contrary, the learned DR opposed granting another opportunity to the assessee. According to the learned DR, the notices were received by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was expected to act vigilantly and pursue the matter. The assessee should not waste the time of the Revenue.
We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the appeal was instituted by the assessee in the year 2021. Page 3 of 4
.
Only two notices were issued by the learned CIT(A) in November and December 2024 within a span of less than 15 days. In the interest of justice and fair play, we find that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to represent the case. Admittedly, the assessee was aware of the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Yet, considering the number of notices as well as the limited time given in such notices, we are inclined to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to represent the case before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the learned
CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall extend full cooperation during the proceedings before the learned CIT(A). The assessee shall not seek any adjournment without just cause. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 8th day of September, 2025 (KESHAV DUBEY)
Accountant Member
Bangalore
Dated, 8th September, 2025
/ vms /
Page 4 of 4
.
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file
By order
Asst.