Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Davangere, dated 20.02.2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under.
1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in disposing off the appeal without allowing sufficient and real opportunity to the appellant to represent its case and concluding that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal erroneously and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently the impugned order passed deserves to be cancelled.
Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appellant requires to be assessed as an AOP without appreciating that the appellant was subsequently granted
registration with effect from 01/04/2012 and consequently, the appellant was required to be assessed in the status of 'TRUST" after allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”
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. Regarding the reasons for non- appearance before CIT(A), it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that only one date of hearing was fixed by CIT(A) i.e. 20.02.2018 as noted by him in Para 3 of his order. He submitted that the assessee is residing in Davangere but the AR of assessee was residing in Bangalore and hence, there was some delay in communication with the AR of assessee. Because of this reason, the AR of assessee could not appear before CIT(A) on the date of hearing fixed by CIT(A). He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. If this is done, he undertakes that proper compliance will be made before CIT(A). The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find force in the submissions of ld. AR of assessee because I find that as per the order of CIT(A), only one date of hearing was fixed by him i.e. 20.02.2018. None could appear before CIT(A) on that date and regarding reasons for non-appearance, it was submitted before me that assessee is based in Davangere whereas ld. AR of assessee is based in Bangalore and because of this reason, there was some delay in communicating the date of hearing to ld. AR of assessee. Considering all these facts, I feel that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be provided to assessee and hence, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity
of being heard to assessee. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage.
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.