C. KRISHNIAH CHETTY & CO PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 679/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 June 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (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 found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment request. In the interest of justice and equity, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed they only received two notices and had sought an adjournment for the second notice, which was not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDR

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Shankar S. V, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 13.06.2024Pronounced: 13.06.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 23.02.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

2.

The learned AR submits that CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. It was stated by the learned AR that only two notices were issued from the Office of the CIT(A). It was stated that assessee had responded to the first notice issued by the Office of the CIT(A). As regards the second notice issued on 01.02.2024 for response on or before 08.02.2024, assessee had sought adjournment seeking time till 23.02.2024. However, without heeding to the assessee’s adjournment request, the impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was passed on 23.02.2024. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A).

3.

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. The assessee had placed on record application seeking adjournment of the case till 23.02.2024 in response to the notice issued on 01.02.2024. The CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 23.02.2024 without considering the adjournment request. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly the issues raised in appeal are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →