BALASA RANGAIAH SETTY ANNAPURNA,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUMKUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1322/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 August 2024AY 2015-16Bench: 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 assessment orders and notices were served on the wrong email IDs, leading to the assessee's unawareness and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

Two appeals (ITA Nos.1311/Bang/2024 and 1323/Bang/2024 for AY 2016-17) were dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine due to significant delays in filing. One appeal (ITA No.1322/Bang/2024 for AY 2015-16) had its delay condoned by CIT(A) but was not adjudicated on merits as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals due to delay, and whether the assessee's non-appearance was justified due to wrong service of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147/143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 19.08.2024Pronounced: 21.08.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Order under DIN No. of days delay Assessment Year section in filing appeal before CIT(A)

271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 418 2016-17 25/1064985679(1) 147/143(3) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 579 2016-17 25/1064985395(1) 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Minor delay 2015-16 25/1064987296(1) condoned

Shri. Balasa Rangaiah Setty Annapurna, Vs. ITO, Sri Venkata Sai Tractors, Sira Road, Ward - 1, Tumkur – 572 101. Tumkur. PAN : ACTPA 4655 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member :

All these appeals of the assessee are arising from the Order of CIT(A) dated 18/05/2024 and relates to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. and 1323/Bang/2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17, there was a delay of 418 and 579 days respectively in filing appeals before Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals{CIT(A)} and the CIT(A) has dismissed these appeals in limine, holding the same as barred by limitation. The CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of assessee vis- à-vis condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

Assessment Year 2015-16 is concerned, the CIT(A) has condoned the delay but could not adjudicate the appeal on merits on the ground that none appeared for the assessee during the appellate proceedings.

4.

In view of the above factual background, the learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that matters may be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. During the course of hearing the Bench has asked for the reasons for delay, happened in filing of two appeals for Assessment Year 2016- 17 before the CIT(A). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that AO had communicated the Orders of assessment and penalty to the wrong email ID due to which the assessee was not aware of filing of appeals. Similarly, for non- prosecution of appeal before CIT(A) for AY-2015-16, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices of hearing were served to the wrong email ID.

5.

Learned DR relied on the Order of AO and CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record, establishing the failure of Department vis-à-vis service of notice of hearing and Assessment Order at the correct mail Id of the assessee mentioned in Form Number-35. Therefore, considering the entire gamut of facts, we restore these appeals to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the direction that CIT(A) would serve all the notices at the email ID mentioned hereunder and we also direct the assessee to respond and comply to the notices in time: -

Email ID : 9448769767annapurna@gmail.com .

7.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →