H S RAMESH,NANJANGUD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2451/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 April 2019AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing that the assessee be allowed an opportunity to produce the original notice of demand. The appeal should then be admitted and adjudicated on its merits, without denying the right of appeal on technicalities.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added a sum representing the difference between contract receipts in the assessee's books and Form 26AS. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely because the original notice of demand under Section 156 was not filed with the appeal memo.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed on a technicality like the non-filing of a notice of demand, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify such an omission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra, B.R. C.A
For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT

APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sudheendra, B.R. C.A., Respondent by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 25-04-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30-04-2019 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President :

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 22-06-2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mysuru, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of executing labour contracts. In the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [Act] vide order dt. 26-12-2016, the AO added a sum of Rs.16,23,513/- which was the difference in contract receipts as recorded in the books of account of assessee and the contract receipts as reflected in Form 26AS (Form of Tax Deducted at Source).

3.

Against the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for the only reason that along with the appeal memo, the assessee did not file the original notice of demand u/s. 156 in Form 7.

3.1. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee produced before us a copy of the original notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act and has prayed that the order of CIT(A) should be set aside and the appeal of assessee should be considered as proper and should be admitted and adjudicated on merits.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and are of the view that the order of CIT(A) should be set aside and the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to produce the original notice of demand before CIT(A). Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the action of the CIT(A) in insisting for production of the original notice of demand u/s.156 of the Act as a condition precedent for valid institution of appeal before CIT(A), we are of the view that the Assessee should not be denied the benefit of right of appeal merely on technicalities. The CIT(A) on production of the original notice of demand shall treat the appeal of assessee as proper and admit the same and adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →