DODDE GOWDA PRAKASH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 856/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 June 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Vice President), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal in limine without discussing merits. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh decision, emphasizing the need to provide a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2018-19. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without serving a notice of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s office issued notices via ITBA portal but failed to demonstrate actual service.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal without ensuring proper service of hearing notice on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.R
Hearing: 19.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 11.2.2025 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073129424(1) and relates to assessment year 2018-19, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).

2.

The assessee has raised 6 grounds of appeal, out of which, in ground Nos.1 & 2, the assessee has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the same has been passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice.

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel appraising ground Nos.1 & 2 argued that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal without serving the notice of hearing on the assessee.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Perusal of the ld. CIT(A)’s order would show that the office of the ld. CIT(A) has issued 6 notices to the assessee through ITBA portal. However, the office of ld. CIT(A) has failed to demonstrate as to whether any notice of hearing was actually served upon the assessee. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has no power to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine, without discussing the merits of the case as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court n the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra reported in 297 CTR 614(Bom). Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) would provide meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June, 2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →