B K PRABHAKAR,BELUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HASSAN RANGE, HASSAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1756/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 July 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the death of their Tax Consultant. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a works contractor, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined a higher total income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and whether the assessee had sufficient cause for delay and non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha, R, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 12/07/2019Pronounced: 17/07/2019

O R D E R Per N.V. VASUDEVAN, VP: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 23/4/2015 of the CIT(A), Mysore, relating to assessment year 2012- 13.

2.

The assessee is an individual carrying on business of execution of works contract for various Government Departments. For the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.62,84,930/-. An order of assessment u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 10/3/2015 was passed whereby the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at a sum of Rs.94,13,050/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the additions made in the aforesaid order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). On the date when the appeal was fixed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte ultimately dismissing the appeal of the assessee finding no merit.

4.

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for assessee filed before us an affidavit of the assessee explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal which is 8 days delay. The reason for the delay was that his earlier Tax Consultant died and the difficulty in locating a new Tax Consultant. It was for the very same reason viz., death of the Tax Consultant, the proceedings before the CIT(A), assessee also remained ex-parte.

5.

We have considered the reasons given in the affidavit filed by the assessee and are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly and also for non-appearance before the CIT(A). In the interests of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand various issued raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) for fresh consideration by the CIT(A) on merits in accordance with law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →