MULLOLY MAHESH,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1310/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President)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 assessee had filed an adjournment application which was not considered by the Addl/JCIT(A) before passing the ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the Addl/JCIT(A) order was decided ex-parte because the assessee allegedly did not respond to notices. The assessee claims they did not receive a notice dated 18.04.2024 and filed an adjournment application for a notice dated 30.05.2024, which was allegedly not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A) was justified, considering the assessee's claim of not receiving a notice and filing an adjournment application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDR

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Kamath, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 12.08.2024Pronounced: 12.08.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of Addl/JCIT(A) dated 10.06.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2.

At the very outset, I notice that this appeal has been decided by the Addl/JCIT(A), ex-parte, stating that assessee did not respond to the notices issued from the Office of Addl/JCIT(A). The learned AR submitted that appeal was instituted before the CIT(A) on 15.01.2020 against the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act (Assessment Order dated 20.12.2019). Subsequently, the appeal migrated to NFAC and assessee had responded to all the notices except for notice issued on 18.04.2024, which learned AR claims that assessee did not receive the same. It was submitted that for the notices issued from the Office of Addl/JCIT(A) dated 30.05.2024 (due dated for submission on 05.06.2024), assessee had filed an adjournment application on 04.06.2024 requesting time for submission till 20.06.2024. It was stated by the learned AR that without taking notice of the adjournment application, the Addl/JCIT(A) passed the impugned Order on 10.06.2024. Assessee had filed a copy of the adjournment application on 04.06.2024 requesting for 15 days time till 20.06.2024.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel did not have a serious objection for restoring the matter to the Addl/JCIT(A).

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Addl/JCIT(A) had passed the impugned Order ex-parte. Assessee had placed on record the adjournment application dated 04.06.2024 requesting time for filing the written submission till 20.06.2024. However, the impugned Order was passed on 10.06.2024 without hearing the assessee. In the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee to represent his case. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the files of CIT(A). Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →