M/S. N S HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed non-service of notices by the CIT(A) and requested an opportunity to respond. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income declaring a loss. During assessment, the AO made several additions for undisclosed payments and cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-response to notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was sufficiently given an opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A), and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. N. S. Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1103, 20th Cross, 14th Main Road, Ward – 5(1)(1), 3rd Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. PAN : AACCN 6187 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Jharna B. Harilal, CA. Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067691254(1)] dated 16.08.2024.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 07.11.2016 declaring a loss of Rs.28,04,226/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee at the first instance did not respond to the AO’s notice but later responded only to two notices on 21.11.2019 and 13.12.2019 and submitted partial reply. The AO examined the financial statements as well as other documents submitted and he made four additions towards undisclosed payment of loan of Rs.56,99,273/-, undisclosed payment of loan (short term) of Rs.1,11,77,999/-, disallowance under section 43B of the Act, amounting to Rs.38,99,097/- and cash deposits amounting to Rs.33,50,000/- during the demonetization period.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) issued various notices on different dates but the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned AR submitted that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were never served to the assesse, due to assessee was unable to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). She undertook that if a chance is given to the assessee, assessee shall comply with the notices.
Learned DR relied on the Orders of the authorities below and objected to the learned AR’s plea for grant of opportunity. It was submitted that CIT(A) had issued various notices to the assessee to represent its case, but the assessee did not bother to respond to notices issued.
Considering the rival submissions, we note that the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2018. Thereafter, another notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06.02.2019 and it is clear that various opportunities were granted to the assessee to represent its case but not service of hearing notice the case was not represented. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity we remit the matter back to the file of AO for considering the issue afresh in light of the above observations. Needless to mention that assessee shall cooperate with the Revenue for early disposal of the case and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026