What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the orders of the ITAT and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was given one more opportunity to present their arguments.

The assessee appealed to the ITAT and CIT(A) but remained absent before both authorities, leading to their appeals being dismissed. The High Court considered the reasons for the assessee's absence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT and CIT(A) were justified in dismissing the appeal due to the assessee's absence, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted.

S Mukund vs ITO | Karnataka High Court 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ITA NO.386/2018

BETWEEN:

S. MUKUND PROP: SRINIVASA WINE STORES KASHIPURA MAIN ROAD SHIMOGA – 577 201. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.R. VIVEK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 GOPALA GOWDA ROAD GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION SHIMOGGA – 577 205. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.171/B/2017 DATED:19.05.2017 ANNEXURE-A.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

JUDGMENT Though matter is listed for Admission by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties it is taken up for final disposal.

Assessee being aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’) in ITA No.171/B/2017, is before this Court whereunder several questions of fact has been raised. As could be seen from the order of ITAT assessee remained absent before the tribunal. Said second appeal was filed by the assessee before tribunal being aggrieved by the order of CIT (A) dated 25.11.2016– Annexure-D. Even before CIT (A) assessee remained absent, as such both the authorities left with no other option have proceeded to pass orders dismissing the appeal. However, taking into consideration the reasons assigned for the absence of assessee before jurisdictional CIT (A), we deem it proper to afford/extend one more opportunity to appellant/assessee to buttress his arguments before the CIT (A). As such order dated 19.05.2017 passed by

ITAT as well as order dated 25.11.2016 passed by CIT (A) deserves to be set aside and matter deserves to be remitted to CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: JUDGMENT (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Order dated 19.05.2017 passed by ITAT in ITA No.171/B/2017- Annexure-A and order dated 25.11.2016 passed by CIT (A) in ITA No. 400/CIT(A)/HBL/DVG/2010-11 - Annexure-B, are hereby set aside and ITA No. 400/CIT(A)/HBL/DVG/2010- 11 is restored to the file of CIT (Appeals), Gulbarga, for being disposed of on merits afresh and in accordance with law. (iii) It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.

(iv) Appellant shall appear before CIT (Appeals), Gulbarga on 08.01.2020 at 3.00 p.m. without waiting for any further notice. (v) It is made clear that no notice is required to be issued to the assessee by CIT (Appeals) Gulbarga and in the event of assessee or his representatives being absent, CIT (A) would be at liberty to proceed to pass orders on the appeal.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE DR

S MUKUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments