UMESH KUMAR BAVEJA,,RAJANKUNTE, BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 21(), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF

ITA 366/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 April 2024AY 2012-13Bench: us the Counsel for the assessee stated that due to some criminal proceedings going on against the assessee. The assessee could not attend the assessment proceedings / respond to the notices as he was behind the bars in Arthur Jail in Mumbai. The Counsel stated that since the assessee is now out on bail the appeal may be set aside so that the assessee can defend his case.2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte dismissal by NFAC for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee was incarcerated in Arthur Jail, Mumbai, due to criminal proceedings, which prevented him from attending assessment and appellate proceedings. Now on bail, the assessee sought to defend his case.

Held

The Tribunal found reasonable and sufficient cause for the assessee's non-attendance. In the interest of justice and fair play, the issues were restored to the files of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision, with the assessee to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Key Issues

Whether NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte when the assessee was prevented from attending proceedings due to incarceration.

Sections Cited

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Respondent: DR : 03-04-2024

Assessee by : Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, CA Department by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR : 03-04-2024 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 03-04-2024 O R D E R

PER N.K BILLAIYA, AM :

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of dated 30.11.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal by an exparte order without engaging the assessee in the appellate proceedings.

Before us the Counsel for the assessee stated that due to some criminal proceedings going on against the assessee. The assessee could not attend the assessment proceedings / respond to the notices as he was behind the bars in Arthur Jail in Mumbai. The Counsel stated that since the assessee is now out on bail the appeal may be set aside so that the assessee can defend his case.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submission of the Counsel we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not attend the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore the issues to the files of the AO to be decided afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.