What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not attending the hearings before the CIT(Appeals) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present her case.

The Assessing Officer disallowed professional fees, repair expenses, and other expenses for want of evidence and also disallowed brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, considering the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic.

Smt. Pundaleeka Geetha vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Hearing: 16.09.2021Pronounced: 27.09.2021

Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.12.2020 of the CIT(Appeals)-12, Bengaluru for the assessment year 2016-17.

The assessee has raised the ground that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the course of assessment, the AO disallowed professional fees of Rs.9,26,970/- and repair expenses of Rs.19,21,711/- stating that they pertain to earlier assessment year and not to the relevant assessment year.

IT(IT)A No. 135/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 3 Further, other expenses totally amounting to Rs.16,23,489/- came to be disallowed for want of evidence. Thus, the total disallowances amounts to Rs.44,72,170. Apart from these disallowances, in computing the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, the AO only considered Rs.3,63,84,361 as against the actual amount of Rs.3,88,03,074 as per return of income and thus the disallowed the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.24,18,713.

On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine for non- 4. prosecution. He had given the following opportunities of hearing to the assessee:-

Sl. Date of issue Date of hearing Remarks of notice No. 1. 02.03.2020 11.03.2020 Assessee asked for adjournment. Case was fixed for 23.03.2020. 2. N/A 23.03.2020 No one came for hearing. 3. 25.10.2020 16.11.2020 No reply 4. 11.12.2020 15.12.2020 No reply 5. 17.12.2020 22.12.2020 No reply

There was no representation from the assessee’s side before the CIT(Appeals). Before us, the ld. AR submitted that when the case was posted for hearing on 11.3.2020, the assessee sought adjournment and case was posted for 23.3.2020. Later the case was posted on various dates on 16.11.2020 and 22.12.2020, where during these days COVID-19 pandemic prevailed and the assessee could not avail the opportunity on account of health reasons. However, the appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(Appeals) holding that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is very much interested in pursuing her appeal and prayed for one more

IT(IT)A No. 135/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 3 opportunity to present her case before the CIT(Appeals). We accept the prayer of the ld. AR. The period during which the case was posted for hearing before the CIT(Appeals), COVID-19 pandemic prevailed and there was reasonable cause for not attending the case before the CIT(Appeals). We are of the view that the assessee has to be provided one more opportunity before the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remit the appeal back to the file of CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the assessee.

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

Pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of September, 2021.

SMT. PUNDALEEKA GEETHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments