SMT. SUBHADRA EKAMBRAM,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3), MYSURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1488/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 November 2019AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that natural justice was denied to the assessee. Considering her age and circumstances, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination with proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an elderly lady, failed to appear before the lower authorities due to her husband's illness and her dependence on him. She claimed the assessment order was not served and she only learned about it through tax recovery officers.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied natural justice due to her inability to represent her case before the lower authorities due to valid reasons. Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Manju, Smt P.Renugadevi, JCIT

PER BENCH: Present appeals have been filed by assessee against order dated 23/05/19 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Mysore for assessment years under consideration. 2. It is submitted that these appeals arise out of orders passed by authorities below against quantum assessment, penalty order under ITA Nos.1488 - 1497(B)/2019 2 section 271(1)(c ) and penalty levied by Ld.AO under section 271(1) (b) of the Act for non-compliance.

3.

Before Ld.CIT(A) assessee had filed appeals belatedly. It was submitted before Ld.CIT(A) that assessment order was never served upon assessee and it was only when tax recovery officers approached assessee’s commercial building, it came to the notice of assessee through her son.

4.

The reasons cited by assessee for not able to file relevant details and make appearance before Ld.CIT(A) was that assessee being an elderly lady, dependent on her husband who was sick and not keeping proper health during the course of assessment proceedings. She had submitted that due to unforeseen health issues, appeals could not be fairly represented by assessee before Ld.CIT (A).

5.

Ld.AR thus, prayed humbly for providing opportunity to represent assessee’s case before Ld.CIT(A) on the issue. 5.1 Ld.Sr.DR placed reliance upon orders passed by authorities below. However, she could not controvert the circumstances, under which assessee could not have represented the case fairly before authorities below.

6.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. The case of assessee falls in a situation where natural Justice has been denied. Assessee had sufficient cause for not able to represent her case before authorities below. Considering the age of assessee and that she is totally dependent upon her husband who was ill during the relevant period, we are of opinion, the issue deserves to be re-examined by Ld.CIT(A), by providing proper opportunity to - 1497(B)/2019 3 assessee. At this juncture, we also condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT (A). 6.1 It is observed that Ld. AO initiated penalty under section 271 (1) (b) for non-compliance. In our opinion, situation in which assessee could not have complied with notices has not been appreciated by Ld. CIT(A). We therefore direct Ld. CIT (A) to verify grievance of assessee having regards to principles of natural Justice. 6.2 Accordingly, all appeals filed by assessee before us is set aside to Ld. CIT (A) to be dealt with in accordance to law. Needless to say that assessee shall be granted sufficient opportunity of being represented.

7.

In the result appeal is filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29-11-2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →