M/S SWAMY SHIVANANDA TIRTHA TRUST,DAVANGERE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, DAVANGERE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1159/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the lack of adequate opportunity. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to the assessee's inability to appear on the scheduled hearing date. The assessee's counsel, based in Bangalore, faced communication delays with the assessee in Davangere.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without providing a sufficient opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, IRS (DR)
Hearing: 01.05.2018Pronounced: 04.05.2018

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →