Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 06.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2018 O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against theorder of ld. CIT(A), Mysore dated 23.07.2018 forAssessment Year 2014- 15.
The grounds raised
by the assesseeare as under. “1. The impugned order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru is bad in law, void ab-initio, and is liable to be quashed.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not removed the deficiency pointed out. The appellant has not received any letter pointing out the deficiency and in any case there being no deficiency, the impugned order as passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and is to be quashed.
3. In any case and without prejudice the appellant submits that the Assessing Officer had erred in serving the copy of the order and demand notice passed in the case of AOP of Bommegowda and Rangegowda on the appellant. The appellant denies the liability to be assessed as such and hence the demand notice and the order served on the appellant is liable to be quashed.
4. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also the assessment order served on the appellant be quashed.”
Page 2 of 3 3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order of CIT (A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. Thereafter she submitted that in Para no. 3 of his order, it is noted by CIT (A) that as per the demand notice dated 30.06.2017, the disputed demand of Rs. 19,900/- was made u/s. 156 of the Act in PAN: AACAB6664N in the name of an AOP styled as “AOP of Bommegowda and Rangegowda” but the appeal was filed by another person Shri Rangegowda having PAN: BPGPR2721M in his status as an individual. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this basis that the identity of the person on whom the demand was made by the AO and the identity of the person who disputed the demand in appeal are different. He submitted that in the present case, the AO has raised the demand on the assessee in its capacity as AOP along with Shri Bommegowda but since no such AOP is in existence, the appeal was filed by the assessee with his PAN. He submitted that in any case, the issue should be decided on merit after hearing the assessee instead of going into technicalities and for this, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for decision on merit in the interest of justice. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in Para No. 2 of his order, it is stated by CIT (A) that none appeared in appellate proceedings but how many notices were issued by him and whether the notices were served on the assessee or not is not coming out from his order. Hence I feel that in the interest of justice, the matter should go back to CIT (A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Hence, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.