What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit despite the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision on merit.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee argued for a decision on merit, while the revenue contended for confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issues on merit, and whether the assessee was denied natural justice.

Smt. Sarasa Prahlad, Bengaluru vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongdu, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Hearing: 22.06.2020Pronounced: 26.06.2020

O R D E R

Per A. K. Garodia, AM:

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against ex- parte order of learned CIT(A) - 13, Bengaluru, dated 18.09.2019, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The ground raised by the assessee in this appeal are as under:-

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Bengaluru, passed under section 250 of 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.

The appellant denies herself to be liable to be assessed to total income of Rs.53,08,943/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 7,94,277/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Page 2 of 4 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in law and on facts, in not affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and consequently passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in appreciating that the order under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, was passed without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and consequently passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice and was required to be set aside as bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in law in appreciating that the invoking of section 35DDA of the Act was bad in law and restricting the allowance to 1/5th of Rs. 75,42,610/-, being Rs. 15,08,522/- was bad in law and on facts on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in not appreciating that the sum claimed by the Appellant was allowable under section 37 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in law and facts in appreciating that the disallowance considered by the AO of a sum of Rs. 69,132 expended towards the cess and ought to have deleted the same, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Without prejudice, the authorities below erred in law in not allowing the sum claimed by the Appellant in view of the permanent closure of business subsequent years on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appellant denies herself liable to the interest under section 234A and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 34,914/- and Rs. 12,57,642/- respectively on the facts and circumstances of the case. Without prejudice the calculation of the interest was held not to be correct as the rate, interest, period amount on which the interest has been levied are not discernable from the impugned order on the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal

2. At the very outset, the Bench pointed out that the impugned order of learned CIT (A) is ex-pare qua the assessee. The Bench also pointed that that

SMT. SARASA PRAHLAD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments