GEETHA GOPALAN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1125/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 August 2024AY 2018-19Bench: 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 condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging sufficient cause due to the email communication issue. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT-A for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC. The assessee did not appear before the CIT-A despite notices, leading to the confirmation of the AO's order. The assessee's AR contended that notices were sent to an old email ID, and the correct ID was provided in Form 35, causing the non-appearance and delay.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing appeal and setting aside the matter to the CIT-A for fresh adjudication due to non-receipt of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 14.08.2024Pronounced: 22.08.2024

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 18/03/2024 vide DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062843516(1) for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, we note that there was no appearance before the ld. CIT-A by the assessee despite various notices were issued to the assessee intimating the date of hearing. In the absence of any cooperation from the side of the assessee, the ld. CIT-A confirmed the order passed by the AO. However, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the notices were issued by the ld. CIT-A at the email ID of the old tax consultant whereas the assessee has furnished the new email ID in form 35 while filing the appeal before the ld. CIT-A. As per the ld. AR the notices were issued at the email ID kskrishnanandco@yahoo.co. which was furnished in the income tax return, but the email ID furnished in form 35 is hiremagalur.gopalan@gmail.com. Accordingly, the ld. AR contended that the assessee could neither appeared before the ld. CIT-A nor file the appeal against the order of the ld. CIT-A within the stipulated time. As such, it was contended by the ld. AR that the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT for 19 days should be condoned as there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to file the appeal before the ITAT within the stipulated time and further prayed to set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue did not raise any serious objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

4.

After hearing both the sides and considering the materials available on record, We note that there is no fault attributable to the assessee for nonappearance during the proceedings before the ld. CIT- A and delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Accordingly, we are inclined condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 19 days as there was sufficient cause was which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time and set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

.* Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →