M/S. REDDY HOUSING PRIVATE LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1123/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 August 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant 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 considered the submissions and, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to update their contact details and cooperate with the proceedings, with a warning against future defaults.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income and the AO made additions for other expenses, commission & brokerage, and professional & consultancy. The assessee appealed to the FAA, but the appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response to notices, which the assessee claims were not received.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 15.07.2024

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.7.2024 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2018-19.

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.1,42,02,680. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made additions as under:-

Other expenses - Rs.10,77,627 Commission & brokerage - Rs. 9,45,879 Professional and Consultancy - Rs.31,85,933 3. Aggrieved by the above addition, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 06.1.2022. Later on the case was migrated to NFAC in terms of Notification dated 25.9.2020 vide CBDT Notification dated 28.12.2021. During the course of appellate proceedings the CIT(Appeals) issued various notices on different dates, but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed ex parte. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

4.

The ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the case was represented properly, however the AO was not satisfied, therefore he made the addition and assessee filed appeal before the FAA with a delay of 213 days which was not condoned by him. He issued four notices which were not received by the assessee and it seems that the notices might have gone into the spam folder, so it could not be seen by the assessee. Therefore the appeal could not be represented before the FAA and he requested that if a chance is given to the assessee, he undertook to respond to the notices and substantiate the case of the assessee with evidence before the lower authorities.

5.

The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and objected to sending back the matter to lower authorities.

6.

Considering the rival submissions and prayer of the assessee and in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision as per law. The assessee is directed to update its email id, communication address and other details and file necessary documents that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency.

7.

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

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →