HANUMANTHAPPA RAVI,BANGALORE NORTH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1898/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 December 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's inaction, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order based on principles of natural justice. One more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(Appeals), subject to a cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex parte due to non-appearance on multiple hearing dates. The assessee argued that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order passed ex parte for non-prosecution was justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
For Respondent: Shri Karuppusamy, S.R. Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 19.12.2019Pronounced: 20.12.2019

Date of hearing : 19.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019 O R D E R

Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member

1.

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order dated 24.07.2019 of the CIT(Appeals)-1, Bengaluru, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has passed ex parte order and restricted his argument for providing an opportunity before the CIT(Appeals). Contra, the ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(Appeals).

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue envisaged by the ld. AR is in respect of providing an opportunity before the CIT(A). On perusal of the CIT(A)’s order, we find that the case was posted for hearing on 13.2.2019 and none appeared. Similarly, the case was posted on 14.3.19, 16.4.19, 12.7.19 and 24.7.19. Even on these dates, none appeared. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal based on the material on record and for want of prosecution.

4.

We find that the CIT(Appeals) has granted sufficient opportunities to the assessee, but for various reasons, the assessee could not appear or the AR of the assessee made appearance. But the fact remains that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte order for non-prosecution by the assessee. We are of the opinion that the assessee shall not gain by delaying the proceedings and it is evident that sufficient opportunity was provided. But considering the principles of natural justice, the revenue will not be at a loss if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. Accordingly, we provide one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the CIT(Appeals), subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only), considering the inaction of the assessee in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). We accordingly set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and restore the entire disputed issue for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) for early disposal of the appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of December, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →