SHRI PRABHAKAR RAGHAVENDRA,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, SHIMOGA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). It restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) concerning penalties under section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution as the assessee did not appear for hearings.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution without considering potential reasons for non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALEShri Prabhakar Raghavendra, Shri K.N. Dandapani, Addl. CIT (D.R)
O R D E R
PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Davangere passed u/s.271(1)(c) and u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) for the Asst. Year 2014-15.
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas CIT (Appeals) has passed exparte order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.
We heard the learned Departmental Representative submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the CIT (Appeals) order, we find that the assessee was provided opportunity of hearing on 16.03.2018 and 21.08.2018 and none appeared on the date of hearing and CIT (Appeals) has observed that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and dismissed for want of prosecution. We are of the opinion that there can be various reasons for non- appearance and therefore considering the principles of natural justice, we provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly we set-aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and restore the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT (Appeals) to adjudicate afresh on merits and pass a speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and we order accordingly.
In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026