DEEPAK MOHANGOUDA PATIL,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GADAG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3204/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 January 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 found that the assessee had sufficient and reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, stating that the failure to appear was due to a bonafide belief that their CA would attend and due to communication issues with the CA.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) leading to dismissal for non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Mrinalini, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, JCIT
Hearing: 28.01.2019Pronounced: 30.01.2019

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

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28/9/2018 of CIT(A) Hubli relating to asst. year 2014-15.

2.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 18/7/2016 of the AO imposing penalty on the assessee u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act 1961 (‘the Act’).

3.

The appeal was listed for hearing on 17/8/2018, 11/9/2018 and finally on 24/9/2018. Since none appeared for the assessee, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. Against which the assessee has filed the present appeal. The ld counsel for the assesse brought to our notice an Affidavit filed by the assessee in which it has been mentioned that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that notice of hearing would have gone to the CA and the CA would appeared in the proceedings. Since there was no communication from the assessee, the CA did not appear before the CIT(A). It was also been mentioned that there were differences with regard to audit fees and probably this was another reasons why auditor did not appear before the CIT(A). The ld counsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessee stays in a remote place and it takes some time to travel to Hubli from his place of residence.

4.

I am considered the submission and the Affidavit filed by the assessee and I am satisfied that the failure of the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient and reasonable cause.

5.

I, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assesee on merits after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to co-operate in expedious disposal of the appeal before the CIT(A).

6.

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

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

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →