K. C. A. BANK LIMITED (PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED),CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHIKKAMAGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 448/BANG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 August 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Principal CIT passed the revision order without considering the assessee's reply and without affording adequate opportunity. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Principal CIT for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a revision order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263. The assessee claimed to have submitted details via email before the revision order was passed, but these were allegedly not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the revision order was passed without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and without considering the assessee's reply.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Ruppin, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Hearing: 12.08.2021Pronounced: 12.08.2021

Date of Hearing : 12.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2021 O R D E R PERB.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 19.8.2020 passed by Ld. Pr. CIT, Mysuru u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT issued the show cause notice on 7.3.2020 after initiation of revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. On the date of hearing, the assessee sought adjournment and accordingly, the Ld. Principal CIT granted time up to 19.3.2020 to furnish the details. Subsequently, the Ld. Pr. CIT passed the impugned order on K.C.A. Bank Ltd., Chikkamagaluru Dist.

Page 2 of 3 19.3.2020, observing that the assessee has not submitted his reply till that date. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the representative of the assessee has furnished the details through E-Mail on 13.3.2020 and the same has not been taken into consideration by Ld. Principal CIT. The assessee also furnished a copy of details furnished before the Ld. CIT. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT was not correct in observing that the assessee has not submitted any reply and further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

3.

We heard Ld. D.R. and perused the record before us. From the copies of documents filed before us, we notice that the assessee has forwarded the details to Ld. Pr. CIT through E-mail on 13.3.2020. Admittedly, the Ld. Principal CIT has passed the impugned revision order without considering those details and also without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the entire issue should be restored back to the Ld. Pr. CIT, so that he can afford adequate opportunity to the assessee and also consider the replies furnished by the assessee or that may be furnished before him before passing revision order on all the issues. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT and restore all issues to his file with the direction to afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide them in accordance with law.

K.C.A. Bank Ltd., Chikkamagaluru Dist.

Page 3 of 3 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →