MR. NAVEEN KUMAR RAMASAMY,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MYSORE
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN
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.
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/-.
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.
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
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.
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 →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026