A S UDAYA SHANKAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of one day, citing the ill health of their ITP. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on merits due to a delay of 246 days and non-receipt of notices by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. Given that the assessee claimed non-receipt of physical notices and unawareness of e-filing portal uploads, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits when the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices?
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS. PADMAVATHY SSHRI CHANDRA OJARI
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 21.07.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.
There is a delay of one day in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the ill health of the ITP during the relevant period. We are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated
ITA No.1822/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3
filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 246 days in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) has observed that assessee has not filed any written submission in response to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that none of the notices were served upon the assessee physically and assessee was not aware of the same. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the CIT(A).
Learned DR supported the Order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee did not receive any of the physical hearing notices sent by the CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee was not aware of the notices issued since the same were uploaded only on the e-filing portal. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.
ITA No.1822/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 30.10.2024. /NS/*
Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
