MR. NAVEEN KUMAR RAMASAMY,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MYSORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1997/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 January 2019AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte after the CIT(A) rejected an adjournment request. The assessee's representative cited ongoing bank audit as the reason for needing more time.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the reasonable cause for adjournment. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, JCIT
Hearing: 28.01.2019

O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27/1/2012 of CIT(A) Mysore relating to asst. year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee is an individual. For asst. year 2009-10, he filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,53,137/-. In an order of Assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act) dated 26/12/2007 the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,84,598/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the additions made in the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal before the CIT(A) was fixed for hearing on 4/2/2015, 10/2/2015, 19/2/2015, 9/3/2015, 18/3/2015, 11/1/2018 and 17/4/2018. For the hearing on 17/4/2018, the Chartered Accountant and Authorized Representative of the assesse filed an application for adjournment before the CIT(A) on the ground that he was engaged in bank audit and required some more time. This request was rejected by the CIT(A) and, he proceeded to decided the appeal ex-parte. He found no grounds to interfere with the order of the AO and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard the rival submissions. From the dates on which the appeal was fixed for hearing before the CIT(A), I find that the appeal was instituted by the assessee on 27/2/2017 and the appeal was set for hearing in the month of Feb and March 2015. Thereafter the appeal was fixed for hearing on 17/4/2018 after a gap of nearly three years. Therefore, the effective date of hearing was to be construed as 17/4/2018. Admittedly on that date, the CA of the assessee made a request for adjournment on the ground that he had to complete tax/Bank audit, which was rejected by the CIT(A). In my view there was a reasonable cause for the assessee’s failure to appear on 17/4/2018. I accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate and conclude the hearing at the earliest.

6.

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

Pronounced in the open court on 30th January, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →