S. MUTHAIAH,DAVANGERE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 670/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for not appearing before the CIT(A) due to being in judicial custody. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

Search and seizure operations were conducted on the assessee, leading to the issuance of notice u/s 153A and assessment completion. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed for non-prosecution and delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) and if the appeals should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)
Hearing: 27/09/2016Pronounced: 30/09/2016

O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :

These are appeals filed by the assessee against common order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, [CIT(A)], Bangalore, dated 12/02/2016, for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12.

2.

The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:

3. Briefly facts of the case are that the search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] were conducted in the premises of the assessee on 25/10/2010 as a result of which certain incriminating material was found. Consequently, notice u/s 153A was issued and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act on 26/3/2013.

4.

Being aggrieved, appeals were preferred before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order, had dismissed the appeals for non- prosecution as well as for delay for condonation in filing of the appeal.

5.

Being aggrieved, assessee is before us in the present appeals. It was argued that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to the fact that he was in judicial custody on a criminal proceedings implicating him in a criminal offence. It was submitted that this is sufficient reasonable cause for not causing appearance before the CIT(A). In the light of this, it is submitted that the matters may be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. to 672/Bang/2016 Page 4 The learned Departmental Representative has no objection for this proposition.

6.

After hearing rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order for non- prosecution of the appeal. However, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not causing appearance before the CIT(A) as he was in judicial custody in a criminal proceedings against him. Therefore, we remand the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →