VEMPARALA DILLIBABU,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 960/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 July 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the matter requires fresh adjudication. Therefore, the case is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, had their assessment completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act due to non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte for want of prosecution, stating notices were sent to an old address even after the assessee vacated the premises and informed the AO of the new address.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A) for want of prosecution was justified, and whether the assessment framed under section 144 was proper.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Hearing: 16.07.2024

O R D E R

Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :

1.

The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 19thMarch, 2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062934620(1) for assessment year 2013-2014.

2.

The facts leading to the present appeal are that the assessee is an individual and deriving his income from house property, profession and other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer (AO) has issued somany notices to the assessee, which remained un-complied with, and hence, the assessment u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter) has been framed.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee inter alia contended that the (AY 2013-14) Sri.Vemparala Dillibabu. notices sent by the AO were remained unattended because of the fact that the assessee has vacated the premises five years ago and though the new address was duly informed to the AO yet the AO has sent all notices to the old address. The ld.CIT(A) has issued around three notices to the assessee, and thereafter, dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte for want of prosecution.

4. Aggrieved by the action of CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. Notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee. However, no-one appeared from the side of the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below.

4.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the records of the case, we are of the view that this matter requires fresh adjudication at the end of the AO. Hence, we restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, the AO will provide proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the set aside proceedings.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →