PRASHANTH BOORUGU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3148/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 January 2020AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance and failure to produce evidence. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, explaining a delay due to a rectification petition and seeking an opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order passed ex-parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee is sustainable. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT is justifiable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALEShri Prashanth Boorugu,

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT (D.R)
Hearing: 27.11.2019Pronounced: 03.01.2020

O R D E R

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

1.

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore passed under Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has passed exparte order and there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative referred to the Affidavit filed by the assessee explaining that there is a delay of 204 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(Appeals). The learned Authorised Representative’s contention that the assessee has filed Rectification Petition dt.16.3.2018 against the order of CIT(Appeals) and finally Rectification Order was passed on 26.08.2018 whereas the assessee after receiving the Rectification Order dt.26.08.2018 filed an appeal against the order under Section 143(3) of the Act Dt.14.03.2016. The learned Authorised Representative’s contentions that the assessee in anticipation of relief in Rectification Petition, Section 154 of the Act has waited till the order is passed and filed the appeal on 24.05.2016 and hence there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against CIT (Appeals) order. We found that there is a reasonable cause as envisaged by the learned Authorised Representative and accordingly we condone the delay for which the Department has no serious objections and admit the appeal and heard.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

4. The assessee is a salaried employee having income from other sources and Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and filed the Return of Income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 30.07.2013 with total income of Rs.10,88,360. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and issued Notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Whereas the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order based on the information, addition of interest on Fixed Deposits and rental income of vehicle hire charges and LTCG and assessed the total income Rs.78,68,330 and passed order under Section143(3) of the Act dt.14.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the Tribunal. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(Appeals) has granted opportunity of hearing to the assessee on two dates and since there is no proper compliance and failed to produce the documentary evidences, the learned CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the additions of the Assessing Officer and passed exparte order dismissing the appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has passed exparte order and provided only two dates of hearing to the assessee and further ld. AR restricted his arguments for providing opportunity of hearing to substantiate before the appellate authorities. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 6. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the learned CIT(Appeals) has passed exparte order considering the date of hearings on 22.12.2017 and 22.07.2017 as there is no proper compliance by the assessee and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal in limine. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not collect the information in time and prayed an opportunity to substantiate the case with evidences before the lower authorities. Considering the facts and circumstances and principle of natural justice, we set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and restore CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate afresh and provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and assessee shall co- operate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal

of assessee for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →