ESHWARARAO RAVI,NANDINI LAYOUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1883/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 November 2024AY 2014-2015Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the documents filed and that notices were issued with significant gaps. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have extended one more opportunity to the assessee for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an adjournment petition stating they were seeking a new tax consultant. The revenue representative submitted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), who confirmed the AO's order ex-parte. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without considering the documents filed and without proper reasoning, which was contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the documents filed by the assessee and without proper reasoning, and whether proper procedure was followed in issuing notices for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

For Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT
Hearing: 04.11.2024Pronounced: 11.11.2024

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 10/01/2024 vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1059537863(1) for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has filed the adjournment petition stating that he is in search of a new tax consultant. However, the ld. DR at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO ex- parte to the assessee.

3.

The ld. DR graciously submitted that in the interest of justice the matter may be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

4.

On perusal of the records available before, us we note that the assessee along with the appeal filed in Form – 35 before the ld. CIT(A) has filed numerous documents such as sale deed, release deed and gift deed along with the statement of facts and grounds of appeal. However, the ld. CIT(A) without considering these documents has confirmed the order of the AO by holding that there was no communication from the side of the assessee despite the notices were issued to the assessee intimating the date of hearing. In this regard, we note that under provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act mandates that the ld. CIT(A) requires to dispose of the appeal with the reasoning. As such, the ld. CIT(A) without considering the documents filed along with the appeal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which is contrary to the provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act.

5. Nevertheless, we note that the appeal was instituted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) dated 11/04/2022 and the notices were issued intimating the date of hearing in the month of October and November 2023 after a gap of 18 months. A such, we note that 4 notices were issued intimating the date of hearing in a period of 50 days approximately which does not appear proper in the given facts and circumstances.

6.

Considering all the facts stated above, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) should have extended one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →