THE BHARATH CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., ,RAMANAGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMANAGARA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to represent its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte because the assessee did not respond to notices for written submissions, claiming they did not receive them due to being in the spam folder. The assessee's representative stated they did not receive hearing notices from the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte when the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDR
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 06.06.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. 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 assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of the emails.
The learned DR supported the orders of the AO and 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 hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of the emails. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
