Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file his income tax return within the prescribed period, leading to a notice under Section 148 and a subsequent ex-parte assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte after rejecting the assessee's request for adjournment.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also found the reason for non-appearance convincing, considering the assessee's change of residence and the rejection of the adjournment request.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Whether the deductions claimed by the assessee were wrongly disallowed.
Sections Cited
148, 144, 147, 10(13A), 10(14), 10(10), 80C, 24(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE “B” BENCH, BANGALORE
Giju Varghese DCIT, Circle 9 1(1) & TPS G1 Premier Residency Apt. Revenue Buiulding 314 Dewans Road vs. 22/16, Central Government Mysore 570024 House Road, Nazarbad PAN – ACAPV2013Q Mysuru 570010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Deepa Khare, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR Date of hearing: 15.07.2024 Date of pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee challenges the DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2003-24/1063535035(1) of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.03.2024 in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income and therefore a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued and thereafter the assessee filed a return with much delay on 17.03.2022. The Assessing Officer (AO) had not considered the return since the same was not filed within the prescribed period and therefore he has made an assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act in which various expenditures claimed by the assessee were disallowed. Against the Giju Varghese said order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that the assessee by oversight failed to file the return in time and therefore pleaded to accept the return filed as a valid return and also prayed to allow the various deductions claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) had decided the appeal exparte since the assessee has not responded to the notices but sought for time to the final notice dated 13.03.2024, which was rejected by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed the present appeal challenging the exparte order of the CIT(A) with the following grounds: - “
1. The learned CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order when there was sufficient cause for non-compliance.
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deductions as under- Rs. 1,41,168/- on account of HRA allowance under the provision of Sc. 10(13A), Rs. 9600/- on account of Conveyance allowance under the provision of Sec. 10(14) Rs. 15,000/- on account of medical reimbursement under the provision of Sec. 10(14) Rs. 300000/- on account of Leave Encashment under the provision of Sec. 10(10), Rs. 100,000/- on account of Chapter VIA under the provision of Sec. 80C, Rs. 150,000/-on account of Housing loan interest under the provision of Sec. 24(b).
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 280744/- in respect of credit card bills as unexplained expenditure.
4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing & adding back by ignoring the facts &provision of law & has made unlawful & unjustified additions.
5. The Appellant prays to allow him to produce all the evidences & documents in supportof its case.
6. The Appellant Craves Leave to add, Alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
3. At the time of argument the learned A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee was previously residing at Mysore and thereafter he has shifted his residence to Pune, Maharashtra and therefore prayed for adjournment before the CIT(A) which was rejected and an exparte order was passed. The ld AR further contended that the assessee had all the documents in support of his claim. The learned A.R. also submitted that she was on virtual mode of hearing from Pune and the assessee also resides at Pune and therefore the AR
Giju Varghese undertook to produce the various documents before the CIT(A), if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee.
The learned D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal since the assessee has not utilised the opportunities granted by the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have seen that the assessee was originally served with two hearing notices and for the third notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed an adjournment petition, but the ld. CIT(A) without granting another opportunity, had rejected the adjournment petition and decided the appeal exparte. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity before the CIT(A), to explain his case. Further we are also convinced with the reason for the non appearance before the CIT(A).In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, we decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) alongwith various documents in support of his claim. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue to his file for deciding the appeal on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also after considering the various documents filed by the assessee in support of his case, in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st July, 2024.