What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it was incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, with a direction for the assessee to pay costs and provide correct address.

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to an accidental change of address and non-intimation of the same. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without deciding the issues on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it for non-appearance due to an address change. The primary issue is the procedural fairness and the need for a decision on the merits of the case.

M/S. Shalini Resorts & Hotels… vs DCIT | ITAT Bangalore 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

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

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Present appeals has been filed by assessee against orders dated 30/11/2017 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-VI for asst. year 2012-13. 2. Ld.AR at the outset submitted that the present appeals were dismissed by Ld.CIT(A) without deciding the issues on merits. He

Page 2 of 4 634 & 652/Bang/2020 submitted that assessee could not appear before Ld.CIT(A) as assessee was unaware about the notice issued intimating the date of hearing. Ld.AR submitted that accidentally assessee failed to intimate the change of address to Ld.CIT(A) which caused nonappearance of assessee.

He prayed that the appeal may be remanded to Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.

Ld.Sr.DR on the contrary placed reliance on orders passed by authorities below.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

Admittedly, assessee failed to furnish the change of address to Ld.CIT(A). And therefore the notices issued intimating date of hearing was served on wrong address. However, it is incumbent upon Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits. We are therefore of opinion that appeal should be remanded to Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. The assessee is however is directed to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to Karnataka Chief Minister’s relief fund. Upon submission of the receipts of such payments along with an affidavit, Ld.CIT(A) shall issue notice intimating date of hearing to decide the appeal on merits. Assessee is also directed to provide correct address to Ld.CIT(A) for issuance of notice. Assessee is also directed to file all relevant details/evidences in support of its contention which shall be verified by Ld.CIT(A) and pass a detailed order on merits.

Page 3 of 4 634 & 652/Bang/2020

Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard may be granted to assessee in accordance with law. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed. Statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Oct, 2020 Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 27th Oct, 2020.

M/S. SHALINI RESORTS & HOTELS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments