ALEGOWDA NAGESH,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 546/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not fully complied during assessment proceedings but also acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the order. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case, subject to a deposit of Rs. 5,500/-, and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return of income which was selected for scrutiny. Despite responding to notices, the assessment was concluded ex-parte by the AO, disallowing expenditure and confirming the tax payable. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The assessee's counsel requested another opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO/CIT(A) after an ex-parte order was passed due to non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Hearing: 11.08.2025Pronounced: 14.08.2025

Sri Alegowda Nagesh, 10th Floor, West Wing Raheja The Asst. Commissioner of Towers, Income Tax, MG Road, Vs. Circle - 1(2)(2), Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. PAN – AAVPN 7256 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT Date of hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20/01/2025 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. CIT(A) in short (Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

It is an ex parte order. The learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO on the ground that the assessee was given many chances to represent its case but failed to respond. So, the learned CIT(A), in the absence of any cooperation from the assessee, confirmed the order of the AO.

3.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee before us filed statement of facts, which is as under:-

Page 2 of 3 “The appellant is carrying on business in the name of Ms. Anika Developers. The Appellant is an individual for the relevant assessment year and the Appellant has filed his return of income on 27/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs 1,24,72,610/- The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS notices under section 143(2) issued and sent to Appellants registered mail id. In response to the said notice the Appellant has uploaded the details which were called for. Further the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, subsequently in change of incumbent another notice u/s 142(1) was issued calling specific details and sent to registered mail id. The Appellant has responded to the said notices and Replied to Notice U/s 143(2) dated 21/08/2018 vide Acknowledgement No 27121811078509. We have submitted IT computation and financial statements and Replied to Notice U/s 142(1) dated 10/10/2019 vide Acknowledgement No 09101911778738. The Appellant requested for adjournment' of the case due to Tax audit assignments Replied to Notice U/s 142(1) dated 10/10/2019 vide Acknowledgement No 11121912640726 Submission of documents information which was sought for in the Notice. Without appreciating the submission of the Appellant Even though responding the notices the learned Assessing authority has concluded the Assessment u/s 144 of the Act wherein the learned Assessing Authority has disallowed expenditure 20 percentage on Total of Rs 1,86,13,499/-amounting to Rs 37,22,780 and worked out the tax payable at Rs 17,83,470/- and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble CIT(A) and passed ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18 is not correct. Hence this appeal.”

4.

The learned AR, therefore, requested that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to present its case before the AO.

5.

On the other hand, the learned DR objected for sending the matter back to the file of the AO.

6.

Considering the above facts and the arguments of both parties, we are inclined to give one more chance to the assessee to present its case before the AO/CIT(A).

7.

Before parting, it is also noticed that there was also no compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Thus, if we set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A, then he has to call for the remand report from the AO on the documents to be filed by the assessee. This process will delay the proceedings to dispense the justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to produce the necessary evidence and make necessary compliance before the AO. It is also directed to the .

Page 3 of 3 assessee not to seek any adjournment without just cause. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for necessary verification and fresh adjudication subject to the deposit of Rs. 5,500/- to the Revenue Department under ‘other heads’ within 15 days from the date of the order. In the light of the above stated discussion, the AO is directed to re-adjudicate the issue as per the provisions of law. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 14th day of August, 2025

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →