GOPALAGOWDA RAVI,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 3, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1701/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 August 2019AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to make a proper representation regarding the correct date of service and file a condonation application if necessary, after which the CIT(A) should decide on the delay and merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being filed one day late, as the assessee reported a later date for service of demand notice than what the CIT(A) considered. The assessee did not provide reasons for the delay or request condonation.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the discrepancy in the date of service of the demand notice, leading to a one-day delay in filing the appeal, and the subsequent dismissal by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna Kamat, CA
For Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 16.08.2019Pronounced: 16.08.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

S.P. No. 233/Bang/2019
ITA No. 1701/Bang/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

S.P. No. 233/Bang/2019 (in Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Gopalagowda Ravi, The Assistant # 471, BCMC Layout, Commissioner of Raghuvanahalli, Vs. Income Tax, Doddakallasandra Post, Circle – 3 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. PAN: AHGPR8215D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ramakrishna Kamat, CA Revenue by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 16.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2019 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

In course of hearing of this stay petition, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the appeal was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) on this basis that the notice of demand was served on the assessee on 10.12.2018 although the assessee has reported in the Form No. 35 that the date of service of demand notice is 11.12.2018. The appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A) on 10.01.2019. But it is noted by ld. CIT(A) in para 4 of his order that appeal should have been filed by 09.01.2019 and therefore, there is delay of one day in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) and in the same para, it is also noted by ld. CIT(A) that assessee has not given any reason for delay in filing the appeal and there is no request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and therefore, ld. CIT(A) held that delay is not condoned and he dismissed the appeal.

2.

At this juncture, it was observed by the bench that under these facts, the appeal itself can be decided and as a consequence, the stay petition filed by the assessee should be dismissed and the same is dismissed.

3.

Regarding the appeal of the assessee, we find that there is dispute regarding the date of service of the assessment order along with the demand notice to the assessee which is 11.12.2018 as per the assessee as stated by the assessee in Form No. 35 but as per ld. CIT(A), the order of assessment along with the demand notice was served on the assessee on 10.12.2018 and therefore, there is delay of S.P. No. 233/Bang/2019 & Page 2 of 2 one day in filing the appeal and assessee has not made any application for condonation of delay. Under these facts, we feel it proper to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision. We direct the assessee that without waiting for the notice of hearing from CIT (A), he should make proper representation before ld. CIT(A) regarding correct date of service of assessment order along with the original demand notice to the assessee and if it is felt that there is delay of one day in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) and if assessee wants to file application for condonation of delay, the assessee should file the same along with the representation about correct date of service of demand notice. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) should decide regarding the existence of delay in filing of appeal and if it is found that there is delay then he should decide the request for condonation of delay if such request is made. In case, it is found that there is no delay or in case the delay is condoned, the ld. CIT(A) should decide the issue on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

4.

In the result, the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →