NAMTECH ELECTRONIC DEVICES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1867/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, decided to provide one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee claimed it was a defunct company and its staff failed to note the notices, leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and if the assessee should be granted another chance to represent its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

For Appellant: Shri. Kaushik M, Advocates
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 24.10.2024Pronounced: 25.10.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 31.07.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

2.

At the very outset, I notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee did not reply to several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) to file written submissions. The learned AR submitted that the assessee firm is a defunct, running with skeleton staff and is not generating any income. It was submitted that assessee’s staff failed to take note of the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, for one of the hearing notices, assessee sought adjournment which was not acceded to by the CIT(A) and he passed an ex-parte Order. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case before the AO.

4.

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

5.

I 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 by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee company is a defunct company and due to administrative reasons, assessee could not respond to the notices sent by the CIT(A). I strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not filing the written submissions on time. However, in the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the file of AO. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →