Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed with a delay of 284 days. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to their email ID being hacked, preventing them from accessing the orders from the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the hacking of the email ID constituted a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had issued ex-parte orders and failed to decide each disputed point as required by Section 260(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals is condonable due to a reasonable cause? Whether the CIT(A) correctly adjudicated the appeals by issuing ex-parte orders without deciding all disputed points?
Sections Cited
260(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Shri. Ritvik Murali Dhar, Vs. DCIT, # Shankar Traders, Kuvempur Road, Circle – 5(3)(1), Rathna Arcade, Bengaluru. Shivamogga – 577 201. PAN : BIPPD 7198 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri.Shrishir S. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Subrmanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 12.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench:-
All these appeals, details mentioned above, related to Assessment Years 2011-12, 2016-17. At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee argued that there is a delay of 284 days in filing of the present appeals. Pointing out the reason for delay, learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn the attention of the Bench towards para 3 of the affidavit filed by the assessee. Learned DR opposed the delay application.
After considering the submissions of the assessee, we observe that the email ID of the assessee was hacked by the hackers, as stated by assessee in his affidavit and that is why assessee was not opening the email to which the CIT(A) has sent the Orders. We are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeals in due time. Hence, we condone the delay and admit these appeals.
On merits, the Counsel for the assessee pointed out that all these 3 orders of the CIT(A) are ex-parte. Learned Counsel for the assessee craved that these matters may be restored to the files of CIT(A) for deciding afresh.
Learned DR supported the Orders of the authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the CIT(A) has issued 2 notices initially during the period of covid-19 i.e., on 09.03.2020 and 14.01.2021. Third notice was issued assessee on 27.07.2023 during which period the assessee was not operating his email account due to the fear of hackers. It is also observed that CIT(A) has decided the appeals ignoring the purport of section 260(6) of the Act, which section provide that the CIT(A) should decide each and every point disputed in the appeal and should also give a reason for his view. However, in this case, the CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit all these matters to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated: 16.08.2024. /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.
.