PARVEEZ RAHIM KHAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 8(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2580/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 October 2020AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, in the interest of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte because notices were returned with the remark "no such person". The assessee claims to have changed his address, leading to non-receipt of notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard, especially when the non-receipt of notices might be due to a change of address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Hearing: 21.10.2020Pronounced: 21.10.2020

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 1.8.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-10 Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex- parte without hearing the assessee.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice was sent to the party by RPAD. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without hearing the assessee.

Page 2 of 3 3. We heard Ld. D.R. and perused the record. The A.O. has reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act upon receiving information that the assessee has purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1.15 crores and further the assessee has also made a cash deposit aggregating to Rs.31.59 lakhs. The A.O. completed the assessment by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.71.18 lakhs as against the returned income of Rs.11.01 lakhs.

4.

The assessee challenged the above said additions by filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The first appellate authority posted the appeal for hearing on various dates. Since the notices were returned back unanswered by the postal authorities with the remark “no such person”, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte. After considering the assessment order, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

5.

We have earlier noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. We notice that the address given in the order of Ld CIT(A) and in Form 36 is different, meaning thereby, the assessee appears to have changed his address. Hence, it is possible that the notices issued by LdCIT(A) were returned by postal authorities. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with an opportunity to present his case before Ld. CIT(A). The address given in this order may be taken note of by the office of Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Page 3 of 3 We also direct the assessee to extend his full cooperation to Ld. CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →