BENNUR SIDDEGOWDA SANTHOSH ,MUDIGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHIKKAMANGALUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 284/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 August 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. A reasonable opportunity was granted to the assessee to present its case, and it was advised to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ex parte order by the NFAC which upheld an addition made by the AO. The assessee had failed to respond to notices, which the learned AR argued was due to communication being sent to an email ID despite the assessee's request for no email communication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without proper communication and opportunity to the assessee, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted.

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 NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri A Shivarao, CA
For Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 06.08.2025Pronounced: 13.08.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 15/01/2025 in DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072162394(1) for the assessment year 2018-19.

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.

In the appeal before us, the learned AR argued that the assessee, in Form 35, had clearly mentioned that there should not be any communication to the email. Despite this, the learned CIT(A) issued notices to the email ID of the assessee. These notices were not seen or noticed by the assessee. Because of this, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) informing about the date of hearing.

4.

The learned AR, therefore, requested that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to present its case before the learned CIT(A). On the other hand, the learned DR did not raise any objection if the matter is sent back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law.

5.

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 learned CIT(A). Now, the income tax department works through online communication. So, the assessee should not insist on physical notices, to avoid any communication gap, as happened in the present case. Hence, the matter is set aside and restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law. A reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee. It is needless to say that the assessee shall cooperate during the proceedings before the learned CIT(A) and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournments. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →