Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH B, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI. A. K. GARODIA & SHRI. LALIET KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Ms. Srinivasa Iyengar Rohini Iyengar, No.4, 9th Main, 9th cross, 2nd Block Jayanagar, Bengaluru 560 011 .. Appellant PAN : AIYPR8309K v. Income-tax Officer, Ward -4(3), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Sreenandini Das, JCIT Heard on : 20.09.2018 Pronounced on : 28.09.2018 O R D E R
PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A) -4, Bengaluru, dt.27.03.2018, for the assessment year 2011-12, on the following grounds of appeal :
ITA.1775/Bang/2018 Page - 2
It was the case of the assessee before us that the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on the basis of the material available on record, although the assessee vide his letter dt.26.03.2018 had requested for adjournment, but the same was declined by the CIT (A). Therefore the CIT (A) had confirmed the addition made by the AO u/s.69A of the Act, of an amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/-. The Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the order passed by the CIT (A) to prove his case that adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In fact, after filing the appeal before the CIT (A), notice dt. 22.04.2015 was issued to the assessee fixing the case for hearing on 18.05.2015. Further notice dt.08.02.2016 was issued which was also not complied with. Another notice dt.24.02.2018 was issued ITA.1775/Bang/2018 Page - 3 fixing the hearing on 13.03.2018. Again the assessee sought adjournment on 13.03.2018 and thereafter the matter was again adjourned to 26.03.2018. Again on 26.03.2018, the assessee filed an adjournment application. The conduct of the assessee on the face of it clearly shows the casual and slackness approach in pursuing the appeal. Therefore we are inclined to allow the appeal, subject to payment of cost Rs.25,000/- the Karnataka Flood Relief Fund, which shall be deposited on or before 30.10.2018.
If the assessee pays the cost as indicated herein above than the CIT (A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits after giving opportunity to the assessee and granting personal hearing in the matter. We are of the opinion that the appeal should be decided on merit instead of deciding on technical grounds of absence of AR or assessee on the date of hearing .