B S MANJUNATH,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2058/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 July 2019AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits. A cost was imposed on the assessee for not appearing before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard appeals related to assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The assessee's residence was searched following a search in M/s SPR Developers (P) Ltd., leading to assessments under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The need to provide an opportunity for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 10.07.2019Pronounced: 10.07.2019

O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member

All the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-11, Bangalore and they relate to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10.

2.

We heard the parties and perused the record. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act in the hands of M/s SPR Developers (P) Ltd. As part of search proceedings, the present assessee’s residence was also subjected to search. On the basis of incriminating materials belonging to the assessee found during the course of search, the assessments of the years under consideration were completed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment orders passed for the years under consideration by filing appeals before Ld CIT(A). The first appellate authority afforded several opportunities to the assessee. In all the occasions, the assessee either sought time or did not respond. Hence the Ld CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals. By observing that the AO has made additions by passing detailed speaking order, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the assessment orders. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals.

3.

In the grounds of appeals, the assessee has raised various legal grounds and also challenged the additions on merits. Before us, the Ld A.R sought time. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals as evident from the orders passed by Ld CIT(A).

4. Before us, the assessee has not explained as to why he did not appear before Ld CIT(A). However, since the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating various issues on merits, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before Ld CIT(A). However, since the assessee has not given any reasonable cause for not appearing before Ld CIT(A), we are of the view that the assessee should be imposed cost for being delinquent. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per year, i.e., Rs.20,000/- in aggregate and direct him to pay the same to the credit of the Income tax department as other fees within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above fees, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in all the years under consideration and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard.

5.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th July, 2019.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →