M/S. UKN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

There is a delay of 62 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that petition for condonation of delay and affidavit has been filed in both the appeals and explained that the assessee was in the process of approaching suitable professional consultant to file appeals before the Tribunal and the other consultant took considerable time to study the case and as such there was a delay in fling the appeals before the Tribunal which was prayed to be condoned.

We have heard both the parties on the condonation of delay in both the appeals. We find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and good reasons in filing the appeals in time before the Tribunal. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication.

On merits, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted there are common grounds of appeal involved in these appeals relating to additions on account of income declared during the course of survey, interest disallowance and disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, except disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) in the AY 2014-15. He submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has passed ex parte orders in both the appeals without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) has not considered the submissions made before him on 7.3.2019 and proceeded to dispose of the appeals on merits ex parte. The ld. AR of the assessee could not appear on the date of hearing on 6.3.2019 before the CIT(A) due to some exigencies, however written submissions were filed on the next day, which were not considered by the CIT(Appeals). The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for one more opportunity for proper representation of the case before the CIT(Appeals).

The ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(Appeals) stating that the assessee did not respond to the notices of hearing and therefore the appeals were disposed of on merits, ex parte.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the cases were posted for hearing on two occasions on 18.2.2019 and 6.3.2019 when nobody appeared for the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) passed ex parte orders on merits of the case on the next day on 7.3.2019 and the written submissions filed by the assessee on that day could not be considered by him. We are of the view that in the interest of justice, the assessee has to be afforded another opportunity of hearing before the CIT(Appeals) to properly represent its case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders in both the cases and restore the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the set aside proceedings before the CIT(Appeals).

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.