Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARIShri Bhairav Kuttaiah, Advocate. Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
O R D E R
PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Bangalore dt.31.08.2020 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
The assessee has raised the following grounds :
1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 14, Bengaluru, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
2. The appellant denies itself to be liable to be assessed over and above the returned income of Rs. Nil on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in not affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant and consequently, the impugned ex parte order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making a disallowance of depreciation claim amounting to Rs.13,95,884/- without appreciating that the depreciation amounting to Rs. 13,95,884/- pertains to assets which were not claimed as application of income and consequently, no disallowance is warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest under 234 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal.
7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.”
At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative made a primary argument that the exparte order passed by the CIT (Appeals) is bad in law.
According to ld. AR, the Notice dt.11.3.2020 by CIT (Appeals) was not at all served on the assessee, the same is the position with the Notice dt.21.08.2020 for making submissions on 28.08.2020. He pleaded that the order passed by the CIT
(Appeals) exparte without giving proper opportunity of hearing is bad in law and consequently, prayed that the order has to be quashed.
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee is very in-co-operative and not responded properly before the CIT (Appeals), as such the contention of the ld. AR to be dismissed.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As seen from the CIT (Appeals) order in para 4, one Notice dt.11.3.2020 was alleged to be issued to the assessee, no response from the assessee. Further, a Notice dt.21.08.2020 was issued to the assessee to make his submission by 28.08.2020 through e-mailing portal or e-mail. There is no response from the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) decided the appeal on merit. In our opinion, it is appropriate to give one more chance to the assessee so as to facilitate the assessee to present its case. Since we have decided on the legal issue of giving opportunity to the assessee, we refrained from going to other grounds of appeal at this stage.