SRI J D PRAKASH,HASSAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, HASSAN

ITA 3283/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 January 2019AY 2015-164 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 held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee with notice regarding the ITP's qualifications and an opportunity to make alternative arrangements. Proceeding ex-parte without such notice was improper.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed without a proper hearing because the Income Tax Practitioner (ITP) appearing for the assessee could not prove their registration. The CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal based on available records.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard or to rectify issues with their authorized representative's qualifications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 288

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’, SMC

Before: SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri D Kiran, JCIT

Hearing: 26.12.2018Pronounced: 02.01.2019

PER SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 14/12/2018 of CIT(A), Mysore relating to asst. year 2015-16.

The assessee is an individual. He filed a return of income for asst. year 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs.11,18,330/- . The AO passed assessment order dated 14/12/2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act 1961 (the Act) determining total income of the assessee at sum of Rs.36,07,228/- after making an addition of Rs.24,88,898/-.

2 3. The assessee aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).

The appeal before the CIT(A) was fixed for hearing on 27/9/2018. On that date one Shri Sheshagiri Income-tax Practitioner (ITP) appeared before the CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee. It appears that the CIT(A) wanted to prove that Shri Sheshagiri was a registered ITP. This was not furnished by Shri.Sheshgiri at the time of hearing on 27/9/2018. The CIT(A), therefore, refused to hear Shri Sheshagiri and also found that there was no written submission. He, therefore, proceeded to decide the appeal on facts available on record. He found no grounds to interfere with the order of the AO and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

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

5. I have heard the submission of the ld counsel for the assessee who brought to my notice that in the event of CIT(A) being not satisfied with the qualifications of Shri Seshagiri, as a registered ITP, he ought to have given notice to the assessee about his intention to ignore the submissions of Shri Seshagiri and proceed to decide the appeal on material available on record.

The ld DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). I am of the view that if the CIT(A) disputed the qualifications of Shri Sheshagiri as an ITP and when if he finds that Shri Sheshagiri was not able prove that he is registered ITP, he ought to have given notice to the assessee on these aspects and afforded assessee opportunity of making alternative arrangements or to show that Shri Sheshagiri was registered ITP. Without doing so, the CIT(A) ought not to have proceeded to decide the 3 appeal ex-parte. I am therefore of the view that the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and issues raised by the assessee in the gourds of appeal before the CIT(A) should be decided on merits afresh after affording assessee opportunity of being heard and also to appoint authorized representative duly qualified u/s.288 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd January, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →